The first time Harvey* alleges he was sexually abused as a child was at a church camp in the 1980s.
It was evening and Harvey claims he was in his dormitory when a priest came in and sat right next to him on his bed.
Court documents allege that after rubbing his back, the priest put his hand down Harvey's pants and rubbed his genitals.
The documents claim that he only left when Harvey feigned sleep.
Harvey claims this happened on more than one occasion.
Over the next few years, he alleges, there were other instances of sexual abuse.
While Harvey's abuse hasn't been proved in a criminal court, he has lodged a civil claim against the Anglican Diocese of Tasmania in the Supreme Court in Hobart.
For its part, the diocese has admitted the abuse occurred and there are very few points of contention between the parties.
But there are enough disputes for the Anglican Diocese of Tasmania to go to trial for the first time in its 180-year history.
The priest Harvey claims abused him is Father Louis Daniels — a notorious paedophile with multiple child sexual abuse convictions against him.
The camp he was on when he was allegedly abused was one of the Church of England Boy's Society's.
The society was described by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse as having a culture in which "perpetrators had easy access to boys and opportunities to sexually abuse those boys" with networks of sexual offenders.
As for Daniels, he also cropped up at the royal commission.
Daniels became a priest in 1975. Six years later, in 1981, the Diocese was made aware of allegations of sexual assault against a 14-year-old boy.
The documents claim he admitted the allegations were true, was verbally rebuked and asked to undertake counselling.
Daniels wouldn't resign until 1994. Despite the various allegations made against him, he was kept on in the church and promoted.
He's been convicted of more than a dozen child sexual abuse offences since.
$34k paid by priest, not church
Harvey is claiming that the diocese knew or ought to have known that Daniels was a paedophile and sexually abused the plaintiff as alleged.
That is one of the few allegations in the civil case that the Diocese is disputing.
It admits the abuse occurred, that it owed Harvey a duty of care to protect him from sexual abuse and accepts that but for its own negligence, Harvey wouldn't have been abused.
This is despite the fact the allegations haven't been proved in a criminal court.
The main issue the church takes is with the Deed of Release that Harvey signed in the 1990s.
Back then he was paid out $34,000. It was Daniels who paid the money, not the Diocese.
That deed said it released the church and other parties from "any and all claims, demands, disputes, suits or proceedings in relation to or arising out of the sexual assault allegations".
The church claims the deed of release "operates as an absolute bar to prosecution" by the plaintiff from any proceedings arising from the sexual abuse alleged in the statement of claim.
Until recently, Harvey wouldn't have even been able to challenge this deed in court.
But the royal commission changed everything.
It recommended jurisdictions remove the statute of limitations for historical child sexual abuse cases.
After lobbying from advocates, governments also moved to give courts the power to set aside unfair historical compensation agreements.
This will be the first time in Tasmania that a court has been asked to set one aside.
Survivor and founder of Beyond Abuse, Steve Fisher, said it's a really significant case for the state.
"This is huge. This is going to test out the laws that were brought in in January 2020," he said.
Mr Fisher said deeds of release have been set aside in mediation since the laws changed, but they've never been tested in a court.
"If [Harvey] is successful, it may well start an avalanche of people going, 'no', I'll go to court thank you very much because I know the terms of any settlement will be a lot different than if we do mediation," he said.
"Everybody is going to be watching this case.
"There's a big difference between what you'll be awarded in mediation as opposed to a court of law."
As for Harvey, he claims the deed of release he entered into in the '90s was not a "fair, just or reasonable assessment of his loss and damage as a result of the sexual abuse he suffered and his psychiatric injuries".
On Monday, his lawyers will start to try and prove that in a civil trial in the Supreme Court in Hobart.
* Name has been changed.
