• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

1. By notice of motion filed on 6 August 2026, the plaintiff, Larry Francis Goldman, seeks an order for leave to proceed under ss 4 and 5 of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW) (the “Felon’s Act”) in proceedings against the defendants, the Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Armidale, and the State of New South Wales.

2. The plaintiff commenced proceedings against those defendants, or at least sought to do so, by filing a statement of claim on 29 April 2026. The plaintiff is currently serving sentences of imprisonment at a correctional centre in New South Wales. The Court has been informed by affidavit material filed in support of the notice of motion that he is serving sentences for offences which are serious indictable offences as defined for the purpose of the Felons Act.

3. Accordingly, under s 4 of that Act the plaintiff may not institute any civil proceedings in any Court except by the leave of the Court granted on application.

4. Section 5 of the Act provides as follows:

“A court shall not, under s 4, grant leave to a person to institute proceedings, unless the Court is satisfied that the proceedings are not an abuse of process and that there is a prima facie ground for the proceedings.”

5. The construction and operation of the Act has been considered in a number of decisions of this Court and the Court of Appeal. Put shortly, the purpose of the Act is to enable the Court to supervise proceedings by ensuring that they do not go forward to trial if they amount to an abuse of process or if there is no prima facie ground for them. In broad terms, the expression “prima facie ground” in s 5 means no more than a basis that is arguable or not totally hopeless.

6. Ms Paffett, who appears today for the applicant/plaintiff, has outlined in her succinct and appropriate oral submissions that the material served in support of the notice of motion satisfies those matters. She has drawn my attention to the statement of claim which outlines the abuses alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff when he was a young boy, at the hands of a priest at Narrabri, and abuse whilst he was in youth detention at Daruk Boys' Home.

7. A very comprehensive report of a psychiatrist, Dr Tessa Daws, outlines both the history of abuse, some significant background matters, and details her diagnoses of causally relevant psychiatric conditions developed by the plaintiff, who is now aged 65. Dr Daws has diagnosed PTSD, antisocial personality disorder and borderline personality disorder as having been significantly contributed to by the abuse the applicant suffered at the hands of servants or agents of the defendants. Dr Daws also carefully outlined some other difficulties he has in the nature of substance and alcohol abuse disorders, and has worked those additional matters into her thinking in her comprehensive report.

8. The abuse at Narrabri was said to have occurred in and around 1966 to 1969 when the plaintiff was five to eight years old. The abuse alleged to have occurred at Daruk was when the plaintiff was around sixteen years old.

9. The plaintiff's claim against each defendant is based on the principle of vicarious liability. The duty of care and breaches of each defendant is comprehensively pleaded in the statement of claim. There are also pleadings of negligence on the basis of the non-delegable duty of care that each defendant owed to the plaintiff as a child in their care.

10. Particulars of loss and damage are broadly and appropriately, pleaded. There is an additional pleading of aggravated and exemplary damages.

11. Whilst there is no separate evidentiary statement from the plaintiff, as sometimes is presented in applications of this kind, I am satisfied that the account set out in the statement of claim and, in particular, the account provided to the psychiatrist, is sufficient to satisfy me that the proceedings are not an abuse of process and that there is prima facie ground for the proceedings.

12. The defendants neither consent to nor oppose the application made by the plaintiff and, in any event, it is a matter for the Court to determine whether leave should be granted.

13. As I have said, I am satisfied on the material provided, assisted by the oral submissions of Ms Paffett, that the proceedings are not an abuse of process and there is prima facie ground for the proceedings.

Orders

14. Accordingly, I make the following orders:

15. The plaintiff is granted leave nunc pro tunc pursuant to ss 4 and 5 of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW) to institute and maintain proceedings against the defendants in the form contained in the statement of claim filed 6 August 2026.

16. The costs of the notice of motion filed 5 August 2026 are costs in the cause.

**********