//
[2025] NSWSC 756
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of NSW
2025-07-09
Hamill J (as Duty Judge)
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: VB v Mullins [2025] NSWSC 756
Hearing dates: 09 July 2025
Date of orders: 09 July 2025
Decision date: 09 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hamill J (as Duty Judge)
Decision: Notice of motion granted. See orders at [10].
Catchwords: CIVIL LAW – application for expedition – trespass to person – elderly infirm defendant – where allegations of sexual abuse admitted – where fairness dictates defendant allowed opportunity to retain expert evidence
Legislation Cited: N/A
Cases Cited: N/A
Texts Cited: N/A
Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: VB (a pseudonym) (Plaintiff)
Brian Audley Mullins (Defendant)
Representation: Solicitors:
Martin Bell & Co Solicitors (Plaintiff)
Ross Hill Associates (Defendant)
2025/00138347
Publication restriction: N/A
By notice of motion filed on 24 April 2025 the plaintiff seeks orders that (1) the proceedings be expedited and (2) any other orders that the Court feels is appropriate. [1] The application is brought in relation to proceedings for damages brought by the plaintiff who was, on what is the agreed position between the parties, the subject of sexual assaults at the hands of the defendant. The defendant is an older man currently aged 87 and, based on some hearsay evidence within the plaintiff’s material, a person with some infirmity. He is also currently in custody serving a sentence imposed on him by his Honour Judge Sutherland SC on 3 October 2024 in the District Court in relation to offences committed on the plaintiff and, indeed, in some instances, the very same assaults that form part of the statement of claim in the present case.
The statement of claim and defence are before the Court on this application and what they demonstrate is that the factual issues between the parties - and in particular, the issues as to the indecent or sexual assaults - trespasses to the person and batteries, however one wants to describe them - are not wholly in dispute. Many of the allegations are admitted in the defence filed by the defendant. However, there are disputes in relation to when some of the assaults occurred and, indeed, whether any assaults occurred between certain dates set out in paragraph 4 of the defence.
To this point, as I understand it by a perusal of the file, the plaintiff has filed three witness statements being that of the plaintiff herself, that of her grandmother, and that of her mother.
In addition to that it is anticipated that the plaintiff will seek to establish injury and damages by reference to the evidence of a psychiatrist, Dr Dawes, whose report is annexed to the affidavit filed in support of the present application for expedition.
The defendant provides, in written submissions, an authority relevant to an application of this kind and, essentially, seeks sufficient time by which to obtain procedural fairness in the proceedings which, in short form, means enough time to brief a psychiatrist, psychologist or other expert in the field who might contest the nature of the damages.
I should have said at the outset one of the driving forces, apart from the age and infirmity of the defendant, is the fact that his asset base is essentially comprised of a piece of real property in which he is a joint tenant so that his interest in the property would pass to the other joint tenant if he were to die.
I indicated to the parties that I was inclined to grant expedition, but I was also inclined to do what I could to provide procedural fairness and sufficient time for the defendant to prepare himself for the hearing. Ultimately, I think it is fair to say that neither party pushed back on the kinds of orders I proposed or the dates that the Court could accommodate the hearing.
I am satisfied that it is appropriate in all the circumstances to make the order sought in the notice of motion. I order that the present proceedings be expedited. Rather than send the matter back to the Registrar we have discussed the possible dates which the parties are able to accommodate and the earliest date for a hearing that might last two to three days is 13 October 2025, being a Monday. That should allow the defendant sufficient time to file any witness statements it seeks and any expert reports it seeks to obtain from a qualified expert.
I am going to set the matter down for hearing commencing on Monday 13 October 2025 with an estimate of two to three days.
Accordingly, I make the following orders:
The notice of motion seeking an order that the proceedings be expedited is granted.
The matter is listed for hearing on 13 October 2025 with an estimate of 2-3 days.
The defendant is to file and serve any statements by lay witnesses on or before Friday 8 August 2025.
The defendant is to file and serve any expert reports on or before Friday 5 September 2025.
The plaintiff is to file and serve any evidence in reply on or before Friday 19 September 2025.
Each party has liberty to apply to the Court on 3 days’ notice for any further case management orders.
The matter is listed before the Registrar for a readiness hearing on 6 October 2025.
The listing before the Registrar on 16 July 2025 is vacated.
Note the undertaking on behalf of the defendant not to dispose of his interest nor further encumber his interest in real property folio 3/G/2271 being Lot 3 of Section G in Deposited Plan 2271 at Arncliffe.
**********
In revising this ex tempore judgment and after consulting the parties, it was decided to use a pseudonym for the plaintiff. In criminal proceedings relating to the same subject matter her identity is protected by various statutory provisions. I have used the pseudonym “VB” which are not the plaintiff’s actual initials.
In revising this ex tempore judgment and after consulting the parties, it was decided to use a pseudonym for the plaintiff.
VB
Mullins [2025] NSWSC 756