Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: WJT v Trustees of the Marist Brothers;; GAC v Trustees of the Marist Brothers;; Williams v Trustees of the Marist Brothers [2024] NSWSC 1612 Hearing dates: 11 December 2024 Date of orders: 11 December 2024 Decision date: 11 December 2024 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Garling J Decision: See [10] and [11] Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Application to use three documents for the purpose of the preparation and presentation of the plaintiff's case – Grant leave for the plaintiff to use the documents and contact certain individuals for the preparation of his case. Legislation Cited: Not Applicable Cases Cited: Not Applicable Texts Cited: Not Applicable Category: Procedural rulings Parties: WJT, GAC, Craig Williams (P) Trustees of the Marist Brothers (D1) Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church – Diocese of Parramatta (D2) Representation: Counsel: G Choat (P) M Deegan (D1) J Waugh (D2) Solicitors: Koffels (P) Carroll O'Dea (D1)\ Makinson d'Apice (D2) File Number(s): 2022/162159; 2023/185560; 2023/108744 Publication restriction: Not Applicable EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT 1. Application has been made in the matter of GAC v Trustees of the Marist Brothers by the solicitors for the plaintiff to use three documents for the purpose of the preparation and presentation of GAC's case. 2. The defendants neither consent nor oppose the grant of leave, but are concerned to ensure that any use is appropriate. 3. Leave is necessary because "Storer Orders" have previously been made which prevent use by the plaintiff's lawyers of subpoenaed materials without leave of the Court. 4. The first document is a statement by a person with the initials MJL which contains material I am satisfied is directly relevant to and capable of, in one way or another, corroborating the claim of the plaintiff GAC. It appears that MJL has made a claim for compensation against the same defendant as in the GAC proceedings, based upon conduct towards him by the same perpetrator as is pleaded in the matter of GAC. 5. The second document is a statement by a person with the initials ID. It also records material which is to the same effect as that which I have just described by the statement of MJL. It is not apparent whether or not ID has made a claim for damages. 6. In both of the cases of those two statements, it is also not clear whether either of those two individuals have a solicitor acting for them and it is not immediately apparent whether there is some other person who could be contacted in lieu of direct contact with them. 7. The use proposed in respect of those two statements is that they be annexed to a tendency notice as evidence establishing the tendency of the perpetrator and, as well that, the plaintiff, having contacted the authors of the statements, may wish to call them as witnesses subject, of course, to their approval. 8. The third document is a transcript of an interview which discusses facts relevant to, but at a significantly earlier time, the conduct of the perpetrator, and in particular the activity of a canoe club which the plaintiff pleads was a part of the authorised activities of the school which he attended and at which he claims he was sexually abused. I am informed that the interviewee whose initials are RB is capable of giving evidence which would be, or else could be, relevant to the claim being made by GAC. It would be necessary before the interviewee could give evidence for there to be a statement taken from him, because the transcript of interview is not in a proper form. It is not presently proposed to use the interview transcript itself as tendency evidence, but simply that the plaintiff's solicitors wish to take advantage of the ability to interview the interviewee RB. 9. In my view, the three individuals are capable of providing relevant evidence, and in support of the plaintiff's claim, and it is proper that the plaintiff have the ability to contact them and use the statements and any further information which are provided in the course of the preparation and presentation of his case. Conclusion 1. Accordingly, I grant leave to the plaintiff to contact the authors of the two statements whose initials are MJL and ID, and to contact the interviewee whose initials is RB, for the purpose of obtaining statements or other information relevant to the case of GAC. A condition of that grant of leave is that contact is made either by correspondence including email, by text message, or by a telephone call by either Mr Gregory Choat, solicitor, or Ms Sharon Cai, solicitor, but no-one else within the firm of Koffels. 2. I direct that at the time any contact is made that it is made plain to each of the three individuals that, although a grant of leave has been made by the Court to contact them, that grant of leave does not oblige them in any way to speak to or communicate with the solicitors for the plaintiff. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 13 December 2024