Australia, Dec. 26 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on Dec. 13:

1. APC pursues damages against Mr B for child sexual abuse which she claims occurred while he was in a de facto relationship with her mother, who he later married and from whom he is now divorced. APC claims that Mr B first groomed her and then repeatedly sexually abused her while she was aged between 9 and 16 years. Further, that his abuse continued even after she had disclosed it to her mother.

2. APC relies on the evidence of her mother and other lay witnesses, as well as reports of a psychiatrist, Associate Professor Robertson, an accountant, Mr Vincent and an occupational therapist, Ms Williams, to establish her case.

3. Mr B denies the claimed abuse. His case is that APC's claims are all fabricated and pursued by her and witnesses whom she called, in a scheme devised by her mother, which began during their earlier family law proceedings, in order to wrongly deprive him of even more of his assets.

4. There is no issue that APC has been diagnosed to be suffering complex post-traumatic stress disorder, with a comorbid depressive disorder; has never worked; and is unlikely ever to be able to work. But Mr B claims that all of her problems are the result of life choices she has herself made, for which he has no responsibility.

5. The parties' contest arises to be considered in circumstances where Mr B and his first wife, with whom he has children, divorced after he invited APC, her mother and brother to live at a property which he owned. This was some time after the death of APC's father, a long term friend of Mr B, in the 1984 Milperra bikie massacre.

6. Mr B and his first wife became closer again after he and APC's mother divorced a few years ago. In these proceedings Mr B finally did not lead evidence from his first wife, but she assisted him when he appeared unrepresented at the final hearing.

7. Earlier, he had been legally represented in both the family law and these proceedings.

8. It was in August 2023, after the family law judgment on which Mr B relied to advance his case was delivered, that Wright J made freezing orders against him in these proceedings. They were later continued by Lonergan J and finally by Campbell J: APC v B [2023] NSWSC 988.

9. Those orders remain in force.

10. Campbell J was satisfied that Mr B "does have in mind, if he can, rendering himself judgment proof": at [8]. Further, that his then non-appearance "may be part of a deliberate strategy to evade the Court's jurisdiction": at [10].

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/193b930b28bbc428221c0fb4)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.