TASMANIA
Abuse And Institutional Accountability In Tasmania
TASMANIA
Abuse And Institutional Accountability In Tasmania
If abuse or harm happened in Tasmania the law that usually governs your civil claim, redress options and state based financial assistance will be Tasmanian law, even if you now live interstate or overseas.
That can include
- historic child sexual abuse
- serious physical abuse
- psychological injury from institutional betrayal or cover ups
- some adult sexual assaults and serious assaults by people in positions of power
- technology facilitated abuse and other personal integrity violations
- abuse or harmful culture in Defence or other structured environments with a Tasmanian link
This page gives a survivor focused overview of how abuse law works in Tasmania and how Donaldson Law approaches Tasmanian matters. It is general information only. The right path for you depends on your history, health and goals.
Civil Abuse Claims in Tasmania
Removal Of Time Limits For Many Child Abuse Actions
Tasmania has removed the usual time limits for many actions involving child abuse. The Limitation Act 1974 (Tas) now provides that there is no limitation period for actions for damages where a person suffered sexual or physical abuse as a minor and related psychological injury.
For many adults who were abused as children in Tasmania this means you can bring a civil claim even if the abuse occurred decades ago.
Other types of injury such as some adult assaults, workplace incidents or pure economic loss can still be subject to limitation periods. If your situation does not fall neatly within the child abuse reforms we will explain how Tasmanian limitation rules apply so timing does not become an unexpected barrier.
For many adults who were abused as children in Tasmania this means you can bring a civil claim even if the abuse occurred decades ago.
Other types of injury such as some adult assaults, workplace incidents or pure economic loss can still be subject to limitation periods. If your situation does not fall neatly within the child abuse reforms we will explain how Tasmanian limitation rules apply so timing does not become an unexpected barrier.
Organisational Liability and Duty to Prevent Child Abuse
Following the Royal Commission the Justice Legislation Amendment (Organisational Liability for Child Abuse) Act 2019 (Tas) inserted Part 10C – Child abuse – liability of organisations into the Civil Liability Act 2002 (Tas).
Key features include
• a statutory duty on organisations that have care, supervision or authority over children to take reasonable precautions to prevent child abuse by people associated with the organisation
• a presumption that an organisation has breached that duty if an associated individual abuses a child in circumstances connected with their role unless the organisation proves it took reasonable precautions
• vicarious liability for child abuse committed by employees and people in roles “akin to employment” where their position gave them authority, power, control or special access to the child
“Child abuse” for these provisions includes sexual abuse, physical abuse and related psychological abuse, but not acts that were lawful at the time. In practice this framework can make it easier to hold institutions like schools, religious bodies, sports clubs, youth detention centres and out of home care providers civilly responsible for abuse by their people.
Key features include
• a statutory duty on organisations that have care, supervision or authority over children to take reasonable precautions to prevent child abuse by people associated with the organisation
• a presumption that an organisation has breached that duty if an associated individual abuses a child in circumstances connected with their role unless the organisation proves it took reasonable precautions
• vicarious liability for child abuse committed by employees and people in roles “akin to employment” where their position gave them authority, power, control or special access to the child
“Child abuse” for these provisions includes sexual abuse, physical abuse and related psychological abuse, but not acts that were lawful at the time. In practice this framework can make it easier to hold institutions like schools, religious bodies, sports clubs, youth detention centres and out of home care providers civilly responsible for abuse by their people.
Proper Defendants and Unincorporated Institutions
Part 10C also contains a detailed structure for proceedings against unincorporated organisations such as some churches and community groups.
The Act allows:
• claims to be started directly against an unincorporated organisation
• the organisation to nominate a proper defendant
• the court to appoint a proper defendant if the organisation does not do so, including trustees of associated trusts where appropriate
These provisions are designed to deal with the old “Ellis defence” where survivors were blocked from suing some institutions because there was supposedly no legal entity with assets that could be sued.
When we assess a Tasmanian claim we identify
• which organisation or group of organisations is responsible
• who should be named as the proper defendant
• what assets are realistically available if the claim succeeds
The Act allows:
• claims to be started directly against an unincorporated organisation
• the organisation to nominate a proper defendant
• the court to appoint a proper defendant if the organisation does not do so, including trustees of associated trusts where appropriate
These provisions are designed to deal with the old “Ellis defence” where survivors were blocked from suing some institutions because there was supposedly no legal entity with assets that could be sued.
When we assess a Tasmanian claim we identify
• which organisation or group of organisations is responsible
• who should be named as the proper defendant
• what assets are realistically available if the claim succeeds
Setting Aside Some Previous Settlements
For a long time the Tasmanian Government ran the Abuse in State Care scheme which provided ex gratia payments for people abused in state care as children. More than 1,800 people received payments totalling over $54 million before the scheme closed in 2013.
Many survivors were required to sign deeds giving up their rights to further claims in exchange for relatively modest payments.
The 2019 reforms inserted section 5C into the Limitation Act 1974 (Tas) which allows courts, in defined circumstances, to set aside previously settled causes of action relating to child abuse if it is in the interests of justice.
Relevant factors include the amount paid, the relative bargaining power of the parties and the conduct of the institution at the time of settlement.
If you resolved a Tasmanian abuse claim in the past through a deed or state scheme and are worried that the outcome was unfair we can review what you signed and explain whether these provisions create any realistic opportunity to revisit that outcome.
Many survivors were required to sign deeds giving up their rights to further claims in exchange for relatively modest payments.
The 2019 reforms inserted section 5C into the Limitation Act 1974 (Tas) which allows courts, in defined circumstances, to set aside previously settled causes of action relating to child abuse if it is in the interests of justice.
Relevant factors include the amount paid, the relative bargaining power of the parties and the conduct of the institution at the time of settlement.
If you resolved a Tasmanian abuse claim in the past through a deed or state scheme and are worried that the outcome was unfair we can review what you signed and explain whether these provisions create any realistic opportunity to revisit that outcome.
Pre Litigation Procedure in Tasmania
Tasmania does not have a single pre court statute like Queensland’s PIPA. Abuse claims are usually managed under:
• the Limitation Act 1974 (Tas)
• the Civil Liability Act 2002 (Tas) including Part 10C on organisational child abuse
• the rules and practice directions of the Supreme Court of Tasmania
In practice this often involves:
• careful gathering and review of records and other evidence
• structured correspondence with institutions or their insurers
• informal or formal settlement processes before any hearing is listed
We manage the procedure and keep you updated in plain language so you are not left trying to decode every technical step on your own.
• the Limitation Act 1974 (Tas)
• the Civil Liability Act 2002 (Tas) including Part 10C on organisational child abuse
• the rules and practice directions of the Supreme Court of Tasmania
In practice this often involves:
• careful gathering and review of records and other evidence
• structured correspondence with institutions or their insurers
• informal or formal settlement processes before any hearing is listed
We manage the procedure and keep you updated in plain language so you are not left trying to decode every technical step on your own.
Types Of Tasmanian Matters We Act In
Within our abuse and institutional practice we commonly act in Tasmanian related matters involving:
- Historic abuse in state care and youth detention
Abuse in foster care, residential care, government run homes, the Ashley Youth Detention Centre and other youth justice settings including matters connected with the Abuse in State Care program and more recent class actions. - Abuse in schools, health and religious institutions
Child sexual abuse, serious physical abuse and related psychological injury in Tasmanian schools, boarding facilities, hospitals, churches and faith based organisations. - Adult survivors of childhood abuse
People who were abused as children in Tasmania and now live in Hobart, regional Tasmania, interstate or overseas. Many are only now in a position to speak with a lawyer. - Some adult sexual assault and serious assault claims
Serious assaults in institutional, professional or care settings that have led to ongoing psychological injury, subject to limitation and evidentiary issues. - Abuse and harmful culture in Defence and Commonwealth environments
Tasmanian postings, training or workplaces where bastardisation, sexual abuse, serious bullying or other harmful culture has caused injury, often intersecting with our ADF Abuse and ADF Entitlements work. - Technology facilitated abuse and personal integrity violations
Image based abuse, unlawful recording, privacy breaches and other personal integrity violations with a Tasmanian connection, which may overlap with our Personal Integrity Violations and Workplace Harassment and Discrimination services. - Extreme safety failures and reparation focused matters
Cases where Work Health and Safety failures, systemic neglect or major institutional failures in Tasmania have led to significant psychological injury and where reparation payments, state based schemes and civil claims must be considered together.
If your experience does not fit neatly into one of these categories that does not automatically mean there is no claim. It simply means we need to look more closely at who owed you a duty of care, what went wrong and how Tasmanian law applies.
Tasmanian Government Responses, Inquiries And Model Litigant Standards
Commissions Of Inquiry and Child Safety Reform
Tasmania has been the focus of significant scrutiny about how government institutions respond to child sexual abuse particularly in health, education and youth justice. The Commission of Inquiry into the Tasmanian Government’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Institutional Settings delivered its final report in 2023, with 191 recommendations.
Government responses have included:
• a commitment to child safety reforms and cultural change in key agencies
• ongoing monitoring of implementation and public reporting on progress
• further review of leadership, governance and information sharing in the public sector
These processes do not replace civil abuse claims yet they can affect how agencies approach litigation, apologies and records. Part of our role is to track this evolving landscape and factor it into how Tasmanian matters are run.
Government responses have included:
• a commitment to child safety reforms and cultural change in key agencies
• ongoing monitoring of implementation and public reporting on progress
• further review of leadership, governance and information sharing in the public sector
These processes do not replace civil abuse claims yet they can affect how agencies approach litigation, apologies and records. Part of our role is to track this evolving landscape and factor it into how Tasmanian matters are run.
Model Litigant Guidelines
The State of Tasmania has Model Litigant Guidelines that apply to civil proceedings involving the State and its agencies. The guidelines say the State should deal with matters efficiently, avoid unnecessary delay, not rely on purely technical points where it would suffer no real prejudice and not take advantage of a party who lacks resources.
Importantly, the guidelines note that the State is generally not to plead limitation periods in child abuse claims, reflecting the special status of these matters.
When we act against Tasmanian government agencies we:
• pay close attention to these stated standards
• identify where behaviour is or is not consistent with them
• explain clearly what that means for strategy and timing in your case
You will not be left trying to read between the lines of government conduct on your own.
Importantly, the guidelines note that the State is generally not to plead limitation periods in child abuse claims, reflecting the special status of these matters.
When we act against Tasmanian government agencies we:
• pay close attention to these stated standards
• identify where behaviour is or is not consistent with them
• explain clearly what that means for strategy and timing in your case
You will not be left trying to read between the lines of government conduct on your own.
National Redress Scheme and Tasmanian Schemes
Tasmania participates in the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse through the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2018 (Tas) and an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Commonwealth and other states.
For survivors with a Tasmanian connection the key questions usually are:
- is the institution connected with my abuse a participating institution under the Scheme
- do I have a viable civil claim under Tasmanian law that may provide a more tailored outcome than a capped redress payment
- how would accepting a National Redress offer affect any civil claim or other entitlements
On our National Redress Scheme page we explain why we usually treat the Scheme as one option rather than an automatic first choice especially where a strong civil claim may exist.
Historically, Tasmania also ran the Claims of Abuse in State Care Program which provided ex gratia payments, apologies and access to records for people abused as children in state care between 2003 and 2013. That program is now closed but its outcomes and deeds are relevant when we look at whether further civil action is possible under section 5C of the Limitation Act.
The State now operates an Abuse in State Care Support Service which can provide limited financial support for education, counselling and other needs to people abused in state care who did not access the earlier program.
There is also work under way on a redress scheme for historic forced adoptions in Tasmania which will provide financial assistance and counselling for affected women without requiring adversarial court processes.
Our job is to help you understand how these different schemes sit alongside civil claims so you do not give up rights or opportunities without clear advice.
How Donaldson Law Runs Tasmanian Abuse Matters
Donaldson Law is based in Queensland yet our work is national and many of our clients have Tasmanian connections.
In Tasmanian matters we:
- apply the child abuse limitation reforms so historic timing issues are properly understood
- use the Civil Liability Act organisational liability provisions to identify appropriate institutional defendants, associated trusts and available assets
- consider whether past settlements or Abuse in State Care outcomes can be revisited under section 5C of the Limitation Act
- factor in Tasmanian Model Litigant Guidelines when state agencies are involved and explain clearly how those standards are or are not reflected in your case
- integrate civil claims, National Redress, Victims of Crime Assistance, ADF entitlements, superannuation and personal integrity issues into one coherent plan
Most Tasmanian work can be done by phone, video and email. You do not need to travel or attend an office in person to start the process.
GOT A QUESTION?
Tasmania Abuse Law FAQs
If you experienced abuse, serious assault, harmful institutional culture or a personal integrity violation in Tasmania and you are unsure how the law applies you can contact us by phone, email or through our online form.
What if I now live outside Tasmania but the abuse happened there?
That is very common. In many cases the law that matters is the law of the place where the abuse occurred which means Tasmanian law may still apply even if you now live interstate or overseas. We regularly act for clients in that position and handle Tasmanian specific procedures on their behalf.
Does removing time limits mean my historic claim will automatically succeed?
No. Removing limitation periods for many child abuse actions means the court can hear your claim without stopping it purely because of delay. You still need evidence that the abuse occurred, that a person or institution is legally responsible and that the abuse caused you harm. We will be honest with you about both strengths and gaps in your case.
I already received an Abuse in State Care payment. Can I still bring a civil claim?
Possibly. Tasmanian law now allows some previously settled child abuse causes of action to be reopened where a court decides it is in the interests of justice, including where there were low ex gratia payments and strong pressure to sign away rights. Whether that is realistic in your situation depends on the deed you signed, the amount paid and other factors.
Is suing a Tasmanian government agency harder than suing a non government institution?
Government defendants have their own procedures and protections yet they are also expected to comply with Model Litigant Guidelines and with recommendations from the Royal Commission and the Commission of Inquiry. In practice some agencies follow those standards more closely than others. We factor that reality into strategy and keep you informed about what we are seeing so you are not left trying to interpret their behaviour alone.