The legal landscape in Australia regarding historical sex offences has undergone a seismic shift over the last decade. Historically, individuals facing allegations of sexual abuse that occurred decades ago often found protection in the “statute of limitations,” which barred plaintiffs from bringing civil actions after a certain period typically three to six years from the date of the incident or the date the victim turned eighteen. However, following the harrowing revelations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, every Australian state and territory has systematically dismantled these barriers. Today, there is no expiration date on justice for survivors of childhood sexual abuse. This legislative evolution has opened the floodgates for civil litigation, where defendants are increasingly being sued not just for accountability, but for their personal assets, life savings, and family homes. For those facing historical charges, the battle is no longer confined to the criminal courts; it is a high-stakes financial war in the civil jurisdiction. This is why engaging a specialist team like George Sten & Co Criminal Lawyers in Sydney is not just an advantage it is a necessity for survival.
Understanding the gravity of a civil claim starts with recognising that the civil justice system operates independently of the criminal one. While a criminal trial seeks to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and may result in imprisonment, a civil lawsuit focuses on the “balance of probabilities” to determine liability for damages. A defendant might be acquitted in a criminal court but still be found liable in a civil court, where the burden of proof is significantly lower. This discrepancy creates a precarious situation for individuals with significant assets. The aim of these civil suits is often to secure substantial financial compensation, which can reach into the hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars, depending on the severity of the abuse and its lifelong impact on the claimant. At George Sten & Co, we specialise in navigating this complex intersection, providing a rigorous defence that protects your reputation and your wealth.
The most critical legal development in this field is the removal of limitation periods for civil actions related to child sexual abuse. This means that a person can be sued today for an alleged offence that occurred in the 1960s, 70s, or 80s, regardless of how much time has passed. This reform was driven by the recognition that many survivors take decades to come forward due to trauma, shame, or the power dynamics involved in the abuse. The legislative changes were rolled out across Australia in a wave of reform that has left virtually no safe harbour for defendants.
In New South Wales, the Limitation Amendment (Child Abuse) Act 2016 amended the Limitation Act 1969* to remove limitation periods for civil claims resulting from child abuse. This was a direct response to the Royal Commission and set a precedent for other states. Similarly, Victoria introduced the Limitation of Actions Amendment (Child Abuse) Act 2015, which removed time limits for claims involving sexual or physical abuse of a minor. Queensland followed suit with the Limitation of Actions (Child Sexual Abuse) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2016, and Western Australia enacted the Civil Liability Legislation Amendment (Child Sexual Abuse Actions) Act 2018. South Australia, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory, and the Northern Territory have all passed equivalent legislation, effectively creating a unified national legal framework where the clock never stops ticking for historical abuse claims.
These changes are often retrospective, meaning they apply to abuse that happened before the laws were passed. Furthermore, many jurisdictions have introduced provisions to “set aside” previous settlements. If a victim signed a deed of release in the past for a nominal sum often under pressure from institutions or due to the legal hurdles existing at the time they may now be able to apply to the court to have that settlement overturned and pursue a much larger claim under the new legal regime. This has profound implications for defendants who believed their legal exposure was settled years ago. George Sten & Co understands the nuances of these retrospective laws and works tirelessly to ensure that our clients are not unfairly penalised by changes in the legal landscape. The law now prioritises the victim’s right to full compensation over the finality of legal agreements, placing the assets of the alleged perpetrator back in the crosshairs of the civil courts.
When a plaintiff brings a civil action for a historical sex offence, they typically rely on the law of torts, specifically battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Unlike criminal proceedings, where the state (police/prosecution) brings the charges, in civil law, the victim is the plaintiff, and they control the litigation. The primary objective is to obtain a judgment for a sum of money, known as damages, to compensate for the injuries sustained. The Civil Liability Acts in each state provide the statutory framework for how these damages are calculated and what limitations, if any, apply to certain types of claims.
One of the most significant advantages for a plaintiff in a civil trial is the standard of proof. In a criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the case “beyond a reasonable doubt” a very high bar intended to prevent the wrongful imprisonment of the innocent. In a civil trial, the plaintiff only needs to prove their case on the “balance of probabilities.” This means the court must find that it is “more likely than not” that the abuse occurred and that the defendant was responsible. This lower threshold makes it significantly easier for plaintiffs to succeed, especially in historical cases where physical evidence may be non-existent and the case relies heavily on the testimony of the parties.
Furthermore, the principles of “vicarious liability” have been expanded in institutional settings, but for individual defendants, the focus remains on personal liability. If a defendant is found liable, the court will move to the assessment of damages. This is where the threat to personal assets becomes acute. The court does not consider the defendant’s ability to pay when determining the amount of the judgment; it only considers the loss suffered by the plaintiff. If the judgment exceeds the defendant’s net worth, the plaintiff can pursue bankruptcy proceedings, seize property, or garnish income to satisfy the debt. George Sten & Co’s experienced litigators are adept at challenging the plaintiff’s assertions at every turn, aiming to reduce or eliminate potential liability through meticulous cross-examination and strategic evidence presentation.
In the Australian civil court system, compensation is categorised into various “heads of damage,” each designed to address a specific type of loss or harm suffered by the plaintiff. When a victim of a historical sex offence sues for compensation, they typically seek a combination of these damages, which can accumulate to a staggering total. The primary goal of these awards is to put the plaintiff back in the position they would have been in had the wrong not occurred. Nevertheless, the financial valuations placed on these harms are significant and directly impact the defendant’s asset pool.
General damages, often referred to as “non-economic loss,” form the core of most claims. This head of damage covers pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, loss of expectation of life, and disfigurement. Calculating general damages for historical sex offences is a complex process that takes into account the psychological impact of the abuse, which often includes Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, and a lifelong struggle with intimacy and trust. The courts look at the severity of the original incidents, the duration of the abuse, and the long-term psychiatric consequences. In recent years, the judicial trend in Australia has been toward increasing these awards. A defendant might find themselves facing a judgment for general damages alone that exceeds $300,000, particularly in cases involving repeated or particularly invasive offences.
Special damages are a separate category that focuses on quantifiable financial losses that have already been incurred up to the date of the trial. These include out-of-pocket expenses such as the costs of psychological counselling, psychiatric treatment, medication, and travel expenses to medical appointments. While these amounts may seem smaller compared to general damages, in historical cases spanning decades, the accumulated cost of therapy can be substantial. The plaintiff must provide receipts and evidence of these costs, but the court is generally sympathetic to the need for long-term psychiatric support.
The most financially devastating head of damage for many defendants is the claim for economic loss, which includes both past and future loss of earning capacity. This category seeks to compensate the plaintiff for the income they would have earned if the abuse had not occurred. If a plaintiff can demonstrate that the abuse led to them dropping out of school, failing to pursue a professional career, or experiencing frequent periods of unemployment, the court can award hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in lost wages. This is calculated by comparing the plaintiff’s actual career path with a hypothetical “uninjured” path. At George Sten & Co, we work with forensic accountants and vocational experts to scrutinise these claims, ensuring that any award for economic loss is grounded in reality rather than speculation.
In addition to compensatory damages, plaintiffs may also seek aggravated and exemplary damages. Aggravated damages are awarded to compensate the plaintiff for the additional distress and humiliation caused by the defendant’s conduct at the time of the offence or during the litigation process. Exemplary damages, on the other hand, are punitive in nature. While exemplary damages are relatively rare in civil law, they are more frequently awarded in cases of intentional harm like sexual abuse. Because they are not capped by the same rules as compensatory damages, they can lead to massive judgments that are specifically designed to strip the defendant of their wealth.
For many individuals facing historical sex offence allegations, the most immediate and terrifying concern is the potential loss of their assets. Unlike institutional defendants, such as churches or schools, who often have insurance or large capital reserves, individual defendants are personally liable for the entirety of a civil judgment. The plaintiff’s legal team is well aware of this and will often take aggressive steps early in the litigation to ensure that there are assets available to satisfy a potential judgment. This process can begin even before the case has reached trial through the use of “freezing orders,” also recognised as Mareva injunctions. A freezing order is a court order that prevents a defendant from dealing with or disposing of their assets, such as selling a house, transferring money out of bank accounts, or liquidating investments.
To obtain a freezing order, a plaintiff must demonstrate to the court that they have a “strong prima facie case” and that there is a real risk that the defendant will dissipate their assets to frustrate the judgment. In the context of historical sex offence claims, where the potential damages are high, courts are increasingly willing to grant these orders. Once a freezing order is in place, the defendant’s financial life is effectively put on hold. This is where the specialist expertise of George Sten & Co is invaluable. We understand how to challenge these orders and advocate for the release of funds to maintain your lifestyle and fund your legal defence.
The scope of assets that can be targeted in a civil claim is extensive. In Australia, the family home is often the most significant asset, and it is not exempt from being used to satisfy a civil judgment. If the property is held in joint names with a spouse, the plaintiff can still seek to sell the defendant’s interest in the property, which often leads to the entire property being sold to release the equity. Furthermore, while superannuation is generally protected from creditors in bankruptcy, there are specific and complex rules regarding how superannuation can be accessed in the context of compensation for victims of crime. Some states have introduced legislation that allows for the clawback of superannuation contributions made with the intent to defraud creditors.
Beyond physical property and cash, plaintiffs can also target business interests, shares, and even future income. If a defendant is still working, a plaintiff can obtain a garnishee order to have a portion of the defendant’s wages paid directly to them until the judgment is satisfied. The enforcement of these judgments is relentless. Once a judgment is entered, it remains enforceable for many years, and interest accrues on the unpaid balance at a significant rate. This means that a defendant who cannot pay the full amount immediately will see their debt grow over time. George Sten & Co provides strategic advice on asset protection and rigorous litigation to prevent such outcomes.
Facing a historical sex offence claim in a civil court is one of the most stressful experiences an individual can endure. The stakes are personal, financial, and reputational. This is why you need a specialist team like George Sten & Co in your corner.
Defending a civil claim for historical sex offences requires a different set of strategies than a criminal trial. While the two proceedings often run in parallel or sequence, the outcomes of one can heavily influence the other. If a defendant is convicted in a criminal court, that conviction can be used as evidence of the abuse in the civil trial. Conversely, an acquittal in the criminal court does not prevent a civil claim from proceeding. This dual-front war requires careful coordination between criminal defence lawyers and civil litigators. George Sten & Co provides this seamless integration, ensuring your total legal protection.
Historically, the “Ellis Defence” allowed institutions like the Catholic Church to avoid liability. However, this has been dismantled, making it easier for plaintiffs to pursue institutions. But for individuals, the threat remains personal. The removal of the Ellis Defence has intensified the legal environment, as individual defendants are often pursued more vigorously than in the past.
The intersection of historical sex offence allegations and civil litigation creates a legal minefield. The removal of limitation periods has fundamentally changed the rules of engagement, turning the past into a permanent legal liability. For those who find themselves at the centre of these claims, the risk is the total evaporation of a lifetime’s worth of work.
Facing a civil claim for a historical offence requires a defence that is as sophisticated and relentless as the prosecution. It is not enough to simply deny the allegations; a defendant must proactively manage their financial exposure and navigate the complex legal system. The importance of engaging George Sten & Co Criminal Lawyers who understand the Sydney legal landscape and the nuances of the Civil Liability Acts cannot be overstated. In this new era of unlimited liability, the quality of your legal defence is the only thing standing between financial survival and total ruin. The stakes have never been higher. Contact George Sten & Co today to protect your future. 02 9261 8640