The Court of Appeal held that 'serious physical abuse' under s 6A of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) requires misconduct of an intensity well beyond what is minor or trivial, and that the primary judge's construction closely hewing to the statutory text was not erroneous, notwithstanding a failure to expressly reference the Second Reading Speech. The Court confirmed that the High Court's decision in AA did not prescribe a new 'trauma-informed' fact-finding methodology for historical child abuse cases; the Briginshaw standard of 'actual persuasion' continues to apply, and considerations of memory frailty, delay, and absence of contemporaneous complaint remain legitimate (though not determinative) considerations. The Court upheld the trial judge's rejection of the appellant's abuse allegations as not 'glaringly improbable', emphasising that where findings turn on credibility assessments of numerous witnesses over a lengthy trial, considerable appellate deference is warranted.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.