What “Just and Reasonable” Really Means for Survivors: The High Court’s Guidance in DZY v Christian Brothers
Home › Case Studies › Case Law Library › Commercial & Business Cases › Civil Procedure & Evidence › DZY (a pseudonym) v Trustees of the Christian Brothers [2025] HCA 16 (9 April 2025)
Published: 19 November 2025 | Reviewed: 19 November 2025
(3-minute read)
Case Summary
This appeal concerned whether a survivor of historical child abuse could set aside earlier settlement deeds insofar as they waived an economic loss claim. Section 27QE of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) allows courts to set aside pre-2018 settlement agreements of child-abuse claims if it is “just and reasonable”.
The High Court’s key holding is both simple and important:
“There is nothing in the text of s 27QE which limits the exercise of the court’s power to circumstances where the claimant’s decision… had been materially impacted by either the limitation defence or the Ellis defence.”
The Court clarified:
The Court of Appeal erred by treating those historic legal barriers as quasi-prerequisites.
The statutory test is broad: all relevant circumstances must be considered.
However, and this was decisive, the evidence in DZY’s case did not support setting aside the deeds as they related to economic loss.
The Court emphasised several factual findings:
There was no direct evidence that the limitation or Ellis defences materially influenced DZY’s decision to renounce economic loss.
The evidence instead indicated concerns about possible Centrelink repayment.
DZY had legal representation and time to consider the deeds.
The primary judge’s finding, that it was “not possible to exclude” the old barriers, was not the same as a positive finding that the barriers influenced the decision.
The appeal was dismissed.
Why It Still Matters
The case exposes a real-world risk that many survivors and vulnerable clients still face:
A settlement negotiated under pressure, or in incomplete understanding, can extinguish rights that only later become viable - including rights to economic loss.
The High Court confirmed that the law now intentionally provides broad pathways to re-open past settlements. But it also highlighted a difficult reality:
even with the benefit of today’s reforms, courts cannot re-write history without evidence.
For many survivors, those earlier settlements happened:
when the Ellis defence made suing a Catholic order uncertain;
when limitation periods created immense pressure to accept what was offered;
when economic-loss modelling was unclear or absent;
when the emotional cost of litigation was overwhelming.
Yet courts cannot assume that those pressures were decisive. Clear evidence is required.
The modern implications extend beyond abuse cases. In any dispute involving vulnerability, unequal bargaining power or incomplete advice, clients often tell us they “didn’t really understand what they were letting go of”, particularly around long-term financial loss.
This is precisely where structural safeguards and independent oversight matter most.
How to Avoid the Same Trap:
Independence & Pre-Commitment Clarity
The risk in DZY is fundamentally a decision-under-uncertainty problem: a party commits to binding terms without truly understanding consequences that only become visible years later.
Clean Law’s independence safeguards address this in two ways:
1. Independence and governance oversight
To reduce the risk of pressured or incomplete settlements, Clean Law’s structure includes:
separation between strategic oversight and advocacy;
no referral fees or shared profits;
Law Society trust-account audits;
ACNC-governed transparency.
These systems are built to ensure that a client’s legal options are examined with clarity rather than momentum-driven decision-making.
2. Consolidated tenders before the client commits to litigation or settlement
From your homepage framework, Clean Law prepares:
one neutral case summary;
sends it to multiple independent barristers and experts;
receives separate, unaligned opinions on strategy, risks, evidence gaps and cost reality;
consolidates those views into a plain-language pack.
This gives clients clarity before they sign a deed, commence proceedings, or renounce claims like economic loss.
In cases like DZY, this structural safeguard is crucial. It protects clients from making binding decisions based on assumptions about limitation defences, uncertainty about suing institutions, or fear of future financial repercussions.
Clients who read this case often ask how to avoid making life-changing decisions with incomplete legal or financial information. Clean Law’s independence framework sets out how that protection works.
Learn more → Independence & Safeguards Framework
DZY v Christian Brothers reinforces that courts now have a broad mandate to correct past injustices. But it also shows the limits of what courts can do when the historical record is incomplete. Survivors, and all clients negotiating under pressure, deserve decision-making structures that ensure clarity at the moment the decision is made, not years later.
If you are weighing a settlement, reopening a historical agreement, or starting a proceeding involving vulnerability or long-term loss, a confidential conversation can help clarify your options safely and proportionately.
Book a confidential discussion → Secure a Private Consultation
By Nicky Wang
Principal Solicitor
Legal Liaison Ltd (trading as Clean Law)
Prepared in accordance with public-interest governance,
annual Law Society trust-account audits, and ACNC-reported standards.
Disclaimer: This page is intended to provide general information only and is not legal advice. The contents may not reflect the most current legal developments and do not take into account your individual circumstances. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of this information without obtaining legal advice tailored to your situation.
