Login
2 recent High Court judgments and the implications for historical sexual abuse matters
Recently, the High Court has recognised that an “impoverishment of evidence” will not, in and of itself, give rise to successful applications for permanent stays of proceedings. Here, a BigLaw partner unpacks two recent decisions from the court and what those matters mean for litigators.
Robyn Tongol
(Content warning: This episode contains content that may be disturbing or distressing to some listeners. Discretion is advised.)
O’Kane also delves into how an absence of evidence should be treated in such matters moving forward, the need for courts to treat such matters in more idiosyncratic ways and not take blackletter approaches to proceedings, what such rulings mean for claimants, how the rulings change the landscape for litigators on both sides of the table, and his broad guidance to litigators nationwide in the wake of the High Court’s decisions.
Help is available via Lifeline on 13 11 14 and Beyond Blue at 1300 22 4636. Each law society and bar association also has resources available on their respective websites.
If you like this episode, show your support by rating us or leaving a review on Apple Podcasts (The Lawyers Weekly Show) and by following Lawyers Weekly on social media: Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.
If you have any questions about what you heard today, any topics of interest you have in mind, or if you’d like to lend your voice to the show, email
Plus, in case you missed them, check out our most recent episodes:
