The issue of enforcement liability was a factor that, prior to the amendment of the law, disadvantaged claimants in negotiating comparisons. If Davies J.`s approach is accepted as correct, it will be more difficult for plaintiffs to demonstrate that it is fair and reasonable for the courts to rescind settlement agreements. Both acts provide that a settlement agreement may be cancelled if it is fair and reasonable, but neither statute sets out criteria that guide the courts in determining what is fair and reasonable. Sleight CJDC considered that, with regard to this type of remedy, the court should focus on the circumstances of the parties at the time of the settlement and not on the evidence to determine the applicant`s plea. In this context, Sleight CJDC took into account, in its decision to set aside the judgment according to which the applicant was time-barred at the time of the settlement, which meant that his negotiating position was severely restricted and that he had no choice but to accept the amount offered by the Christian brothers. The other factors taken into consideration by the Sleight CJDC were that the scope of the applicant`s right had never been decided on the merits and that the Tribunal`s decision to grant the leave was consistent with the general intention of the law to remove the legal obstacles that had just been brought before the prosecution and to have his rights decided on the merits. The facts of TRG were as follows: the applicant was a 13-year-old pupil at Brisbane Grammar School (BGS), where he was sexually assaulted on several occasions by Mr Lynch, a school counsellor, in 1986 and 1987. Dr.
Categorised in: Uncategorized