Palmer v State of New South Wales [2024] NSWSC 179

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Palmer v State of New South Wales [2024] NSWSC 179 Hearing dates: 01 September 2023 Date of orders: 29 February 2024 Decision date: 29 February 2024 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Garling J Decision: (1) Judgment for the plaintiff against the third defendant in the sum of $1,832,900. (2) Third defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings. (3) Liberty to apply. Catchwords: TORTS – Trespass to the person – Battery – Damages – Personal injury damages – Assessment of damages for default judgment in favour of the plaintiff. Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2005 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Cases Cited: Not Applicable Texts Cited: Not Applicable Category: Principal judgment Parties: Kathleen Palmer (P) State of New South Wales (D1) Lillian Dora Ladis (D2) Edwin Schwartz (D3) Representation: Counsel: A McQuillen (P)

Solicitors: Buckley Lawyers (P) No Appearance (D1) Deceased (D2) No Appearance (D3) File Number(s): 2021/161565 Publication restriction: Not Applicable

JUDGMENT 1. Ms Kathleen Palmer (the plaintiff) brings proceedings seeking, amongst other things, damages for historical child sexual assault from three defendants. 2. The proceedings were initially commenced by a Summons filed on 4 June 2021. After some initial management hearings, the plaintiff was ordered to file a Statement of Claim, which was filed on 17 December 2021. The first-named defendant was the State of New South Wales. The plaintiff has resolved her claim against the first defendant and orders finalising the claim have been made. The State is no longer involved in the proceedings. 3. The second-named defendant is Ms Lillian Dora Ladis. She became the plaintiff's guardian, and the person with whom she lived in Queensland after the plaintiff had been made a Ward of the State. Ms Ladis has died since the commencement of the proceedings, her Estate was not the subject of any grant of probate or Letters of Administration, and the proceedings have not continued against her. 4. The third-named defendant, Mr Edwin Schwarz (the son of the second defendant) was sued on the basis that whilst the plaintiff was living with the second defendant and her husband, he too was living in the same house and, for a period of five years between 1975 and 1980, sexually assaulted and abused her.