Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A legal service accused of negligently advising thousands of institutional child sexual abuse victims has failed in its bid to narrow the issues to be determined at an initial hearing.
Knowmore Legal Service has failed to confine an initial class action trial to common questions, leaving individual negligence claims brought by lead applicant Brian Holmes in play.
Given the proceedings were issued over two years ago and the initial trial is not to be heard until March next year, Justice Andrew Keogh said the “efficient and timely determination” of the individual claim was a “relevant consideration”.
“The issues in dispute include Holmes’ claim.
“The overarching purpose is advanced by determining as many common issues as possible and resolving Holmes’ individual claim at the initial trial,” Justice Keogh said.
The class action was filed against Knowmore and the National Association of Community Legal Centres by Arnold Thomas & Becker on behalf of up to 16,000 institutional child sexual abuse survivors, who alleged they were deprived of thousands of dollars as a result of Knowmore’s “inadequate advice”.
The case centres on legislative reform across Australia that opened the door to civil claims setting for more than $1 million.
This figure is substantially above the $150,000 cap under the National Redress Scheme, which also requires that victim-survivors release institutions from future civil claims.
Justice Keogh said it was likely Holmes’ claim would be used “as a vehicle” to assist in determining the common questions.
“What reasonable care requires of a solicitor retained to advise a client in particular circumstances is fact-dependent.
“The particular facts relied on by Holmes include a comparison of a redress offer made to a group member under the National Redress Scheme with damages that would likely be recovered in a potential common law claim and the particular characteristics that Knowmore knew or ought to have known were common to group members,” Justice Keogh said in his written decision.
“Consideration of the context provided by Holmes’ individual claim is likely to be useful in determination of the content of the duty owed by Knowmore to group members.”
Submissions were made about what common questions are to be dealt with at trial, but Justice Keogh said it was appropriate that the parties have a “further opportunity” to discuss them.
Holmes has advanced 24 common questions that cover preliminary factual questions, his retainer claim, a negligence claim, and his fiduciary duties claim.
Knowmore produced just five, proposing to exclude the preliminary factual questions and advanced questions that do not distinguish between the breach of retainer and negligence.
Justice Keogh made some comments about both, including that it was “appropriate” to have a question about the effect of legislative reform on group members and that the parties should reach an agreement about a question on funding arrangements.
Appearing before an inquiry into the National Redress Scheme, Knowmore Legal’s then-acting principal lawyer Rachel Neil said the firm intends to “vigorously” defend the class action.
Citation: Holmes v Knowmore Legal Service (No 3) [2026] VSC 560.
