Gibson v Blomdale [2026] NSWSC 952 | Case summary | Zoe

/

/

Gibson v Blomdale [2026] NSWSC 952 | Case summary | Zoe

The Registrar’s orders made on 30 April 2026, envisaged the matter proceeding, on the same day, to the assessment of damages if default judgment was entered. I can see no reason not to so proceed.
The evidence is contained in the Court Book (Exhibit A). I particularly note the following:
The affidavit of Sonia Gibson affirmed on 4 June 2026, which sets out the abuse, its lifelong consequences, the causal connection, and her present condition and future needs (with Annexures A to J);
The medico-legal report of independent psychiatrist Dr Justine Hoey-Thompson dated 15 December 2025, annexed to the affidavit of Ms Parry dated 4 June 2026. The report contains the acknowledgement required by the Expert Witness Code of Conduct (UCPR Sch 7) and r 31.27 and is in admissible form;
The plaintiff’s medical records – Hunter Primary Care, Glendale Medical Centre, the Hummingbird Centre (the psychologist Dr Aaron Simpson), and Beyond Blue (including call records) – annexed to Ms Parry’s affidavit, and the Centrelink Disability Support Pension grant (Annexure F to the plaintiff’s affidavit);
The affidavit of the plaintiff’s daughter, Ms Alicia Gibson dated 4 June 2026, going to her lifelong observation of the plaintiff’s low mood, dissociative “zoned-out” episodes, hypervigilant behaviour (including keeping a light on and hammer handles above the doors for self-defence), social isolation, irregular sleep and eating, and the period of heavy alcohol use; and
Two corroborating letters annexed to the plaintiff’s affidavit: the letter of Ms Katie Rugendyke dated 29 May 2026 (Annexure C), confirming the plaintiff’s continuous Alcoholics Anonymous attendance since 11 February 2022; and the letter of Ms Robyn Pung (the defendant’s sister) dated 26 May 2026 (Annexure G), confirming the family’s estrangement, the defendant’s own violent and abusive upbringing, and her recent contact with the plaintiff. The treating general practitioner’s evidence is also relied on: the letter of Dr Fiona Boyd dated 25 May 2026 (Annexure I) and the GP mental health care plan (Annexure H).
Three points should be made at the start:
There is no time limit relevant to the proceedings. Section 6A of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) removes any limitation period for actions arising from child abuse. The plaintiff’s allegations, as described below, are of serious physical abuse and occurred when the plaintiff was under the age of 18, therefore constituting “child abuse” as defined in s 6A(2).
Section 3B(1)(a) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (the CLA) excludes, as is the case here, the provisions of the CLA where the alleged wrongdoing arises from intentional acts done with the intent to cause injury.
The plaintiff must prove each head of damages. Serious allegations need to be established in accordance with Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336.
In respect of (3) in the preceding paragraph there is no opposition to any of the allegations. I am satisfied they have been proved to the requisite standard on the admitted evidence.
The effect of the exclusion of the CLA is that damages are to be assessed at common law, and future calculations, where applicable, are to be assessed using a 3% multiplier instead of 5%: Todorovic v Waller (1981) 150 CLR 402.
The plaintiff has claimed damages under the following heads: general damages, past and future economic loss, past and future medical expenses, gratuitous care and aggravated and exemplary damages. Interest and lost superannuation benefits are claimed where applicable.

I have taken the following facts from the plaintiff’s statement dated 13 October 2025, and her affidavit dated 4 June 2026.
The defendant was born in 1940. The plaintiff was born in 1970. The defendant is the plaintiff’s father. The plaintiff is the youngest of three female siblings. The family grew up in the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie areas. Her parents divorced in 1989.
The plaintiff has been estranged from her family, other than her daughter, for many years. There has also been some contact with an aunt, Ms Robyn Pung.
In her evidence, the plaintiff describes a difficult and lonely childhood. The defendant worked on night shifts, so that quiet was demanded during the day. The plaintiff spent her days in hiding from her parents, and fearful of the abuse she could hear her father inflicting upon her mother. Both her parents were described as dishonest, stealing from their respective workplaces, and from the public. Their actions added to the frightening atmosphere about their residence.
There were no visitors to the home, and the plaintiff was deprived of all amenities. This included a refusal to obtain medical treatment when required. She described her childhood as “isolated and cult like”.
The defendant’s physical abuse of the plaintiff started when she was about six years of age. She was kicked, hit, and “grabbed and thrown”. Her elder sisters left when they were about 14 years of age. When she started school, the plaintiff recognised that her life was different to that of her classmates who appeared to live in happy family circumstances.
The abuse seemed to escalate when the plaintiff was about 10 years of age. She was beaten by father on a weekly basis which included being thrown against the wall of her bedroom. The defendant would have his hand on her throat and bang her head against the wall. On one occasion the plaintiff was knocked unconscious when she ran into a glass door in an attempt to escape from her father’s beatings.
In addition to physical beatings, the plaintiff was often humiliated and verbally abused by her father. He constantly told her that she was “dumb”, “stupid”, “useless” and a waste of space.
When the plaintiff was in Year 9, her parents left her alone at home for long periods while they built a home at another address. The periods that she would be alone could be for up to a month during which she was afraid and lived on frozen food or basics.
The plaintiff left home when she was 14 or 15 years of age, moving into a halfway house. Her father took her from this accommodation after about six months, taking her to live with her mother at an isolated country property. Her mother seemed to be in a disassociated state. After a few days she escaped and sought help from a neighbour, who drove her and her mother to a caravan park.
The abuse inflicted by her father upon her has had major effects upon the plaintiff’s life. Rather than using my words I will quote from the plaintiff’s statement.

General damages: The abuse started when the plaintiff was about 6 years of age. It continued unremittingly for the next 9 years. Its effects have been to practically every aspect of the plaintiff’s life. Her wellbeing, her mental health, and her employability have all been impacted. She has been suicidal and in receipt of continual counselling and medical care.
All of the effects on the plaintiff will remain for the rest of her working life and the rest of her life. General damages must be substantial.
I assess general damages at $325,000. Interest on half of this amount at 2% per annum for 40 years is $130,000, taking into account the decision in MBP (SA) Pty Ltd v Gogi**c (1991) 171 CLR 657.
Past-economic loss: The plaintiff has been in 52 different jobs between 1985 and 2025. She obviously has difficulty in maintaining employment. It is impossible to be precise in working out the past loss. The only avenue for compensation is through a buffer, which I assess at $300,000. This figure is roughly derived from Australian Bureau of Statistics figures showing gross average weekly earnings for females in 1985 being about $300 and $1,300 in 2025. The average is $800. Applying tax at 30% reduces this figure to $560.
$560 per week over 41 years is $1,193,920. Reducing this figure by 75% brings it down to $298,480. The 75% reduction is to take account of the times the plaintiff has worked, the use of average weekly earnings over the whole period, and the times when the plaintiff may not have worked (for example due to education and raising her daughter).
The plaintiff would have been entitled to superannuation benefits from July 1992. Again, on a fairly assumptive buffer basis I assess this loss at $30,000 (Roughly 11% of lost wages over 34 years).
Interest on past economic loss: The plaintiff has claimed interest at 2% per annum, which I think is reasonable. Allowing interest for 35 years, the figure is $210,000.
Future economic loss: Again, this can only be done on a buffer basis. The plaintiff is no longer working and is in receipt of a Disability Support Pension (since April 2026). The plaintiff has 11 years to age 67.
According to Dr Hoey-Thompson, the impact of the abuse on the plaintiff’s future working life is likely to be permanent.
The plaintiff has suggested a net weekly loss of $900 to $1,100. I think this is too high considering the level of work the plaintiff has been doing. If I allowed $750 per week at a 3% discount multiplier for 11 years the result would be $367,500. Applying a 15% deduction for vicissitudes, the figure comes down to $312,375. On the buffer basis I will allow $350,000 including any lost superannuation benefits.
O****ut of pocket expenses: the past claim includes the cost of dental repair as a child. I do not think I can encompass this claim as a result of the physical abuse by the defendant. It is more likely a result of neglect by both parents. Also, if derived from neglect, the provisions of the CLA may become relevant. However, I intend to allow the Individual Prescribing History annexed to the affidavit of Ms Parry dated 5 August 2026, together with a small allowance for medical treatment over the years. I will allow $5,000, noting there will be no Medicare payback.
The report of Dr Hoey-Thompson suggests a range of treatment including GP visits and consultations with a psychologist, and a psychiatrist, some regular and some intermittent. Therapy is said to be required at least weekly for several years. I think a weekly figure of $50 is appropriate for the rest of the plaintiff’s life. Her medium life expectancy is another 32 years. On the 3% tables the resulting figure is $53,990.
Past gratuitous care: The care is said to have been provided by the plaintiff’s daughter. Her affidavit does not give details such as work done, or time spent. At best there is perhaps a degree of monitoring and sometime assistance.
Although the plaintiff suggested a sum of between $5,000 and $10,000, I do not think I should allow any amount simply because the claim is fairly modest. I therefore decline to award any past gratuitous care.
Aggravated and exemplary damages: In New South Wales v Ibbett (2006) 229 CLR 638, at [31] the High Court said: