Publications

Case Summary: HMB24 v Operator, National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse [2025] FCA 278

Published on June 4, 2025 by Julia Harrison and Isabella Mirjanoska

HMB24 v Operator, National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse [1] is a decision which was handed down in the Federal Court of Australia on 28 March 2025.

Procedural Background

HMB24 (a pseudonym) (the Applicant) made an application for redress under the National Redress Scheme in August 2020 [2] concerning alleged grooming he had experienced at a school[3].

On 19 December 2022, a delegate of the Operator of the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (the Respondent) made a determination not to approve the application [4]. The delegate made such determination on the basis that a participating institution responsible for the alleged abuse, could not be identified [5].

The Applicant then sought review of the original determination [6]. On 7 February 2023, a delegate of the Respondent affirmed the original determination [7]. The delegate opined that grooming did not meet the definition of “sexual abuse” and determined that it could only be assessed as a “related non-sexual abuse”[8]. The Applicant thereafter requested revocation of the review determination however that was declined by a delegate of the Respondent [9].

The Applicant subsequently commenced proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia seeking relief[10] under section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) [11]. The parties underwent mediation and jointly sought orders for the issuing of a writ of certiorari which would quash both the original and review determinations, and a writ of mandamus which would require the Respondent to make a determination in relation to the Applicant’s redress application [12].

Issues

In order to make the orders jointly sought by the parties, the Court was required to consider the following issues:

i. Whether the original determination and review determination were attended with jurisdictional error[13]; and

ii. Whether the relief jointly sought by the parties should be granted [14].

Decision

Longbottom J allowed the application and made the orders jointly promoted by the parties [15]. Her Honour provided the following reasoning in support of her decision:

i. In both the original determination and the review determination, delegates of the Respondent failed to properly consider whether the alleged grooming constituted “sexual abuse” pursuant to section 6 of the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018 (Cth) (the Redress Act) [16]

ii. In Brooks v Operator, National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse [17], Logan J determined that the definition of “sexual abuse” in section 6 of the Redress Act is inclusory and should not be narrowly construed [18].

iii. If the delegates of the Respondent had properly addressed whether the alleged grooming constituted “sexual abuse”, there was a realistic possibility that a different decision could have been made and that the grooming could have potentially been regarded as “sexual abuse”[19].

Longbottom J ultimately accepted that the delegates of the Respondent engaged in a material breach of an implied condition of procedural fairness[20] which may be characterised as a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction [21] and which amounted to jurisdictional error [22].

You can read the full decision here.

Please note that this article does not constitute legal advice. If you are seeking professional advice on any legal matters, you can contact Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers on 1800 059 278 or via our Contact Page and one of our lawyers will be able to assist you.

---

[1] HMB24 v Operator, National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse [2025] FCA 278.

[2] Ibid, [4] (Longbottom J).

[3] Ibid, [16] (Longbottom J).

[4] Ibid, [4] (Longbottom J).

[5] Ibid, [4] (Longbottom J).

[6] Ibid, [5] (Longbottom J).

[7] Ibid, [5] (Longbottom J).

[8] Ibid, [16] (Longbottom J).

[9] Ibid, [5] (Longbottom J).

[10] Ibid, [6] (Longbottom J).

[11] Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39B.

[12] HMB24 v Operator, National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse [2025] FCA 278, [6] (Longbottom J).

[13] Ibid, [7] (Longbottom J).

[14] Ibid, [7] (Longbottom J).

[15] Ibid, [25] (Longbottom J).

[16] Ibid, [22] (Longbottom J).

[17] Brooks v Operator, National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse [2024] FCA 725.

[18] HMB24 v Operator, National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse [2025] FCA 278, [17] (Longbottom J).

[19] Ibid, [23] (Longbottom J).

[20] Ibid [24] (Longbottom J).

[21] Ibid, [24] (Longbottom J).

[22] Ibid, [24] (Longbottom J).