The Legal Light Justin Stack High Court rules church liable for priest's sexual abuse Australia's highest court has widened the door to claims for compensation for historical sexual abuse, by overturning a longstanding ruling that an institution could not be sued for criminal actions of its representatives because it did not owe a duty to ensure criminal acts were not committed by its delegates. In a landmark decision on 11 February 2026, the High Court found the Catholic Church liable for the harm caused to a 13-year-old boy who suffered abuse at the hands of a paedophile priest in the late 1960s. Before this decision, abuse victims trying to sue institutions such as churches, schools, sporting organisations and scout groups faced a major legal hurdle, as the 2024 High Court decision in Bird v DP found that the doctrine of vicarious liability did not extend to people in a position "akin to an employee", such as volunteers, priests and coaches. The 2026 case before the High Court involved a Newcastle assistant priest accused of abusing a boy known as AA in a presbytery in 1969, causing injury and ongoing psychological harm. In 2024 a NSW Supreme Court judge accepted the assaults had happened, found the church was vicariously liable and awarded $636,840 to AA. The trustees of the Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle appealed, and the ruling was overturned on the basis that the diocese was not aware the priest was a danger to children. In the period between the judgment and the appeal, the High Court had handed down its decision in Bird v DP, which confined vicarious liability to employees only, not people in a position "akin to an employee", such as priests. In the AA case in the High Court, the victim's lawyers argued the diocese had a "non-delegable duty" to ensure reasonable care was taken of children in its care. A non-delegable duty is used to justify the imposition of liability on one person for the negligence of another who is entrusted with a task. In a majority decision the High Court agreed, saying the diocese had a duty to ensure that while AA was "under the care, supervision or control of a priest... performing a function of a priest, that reasonable care was taken to prevent reasonably foreseeable personal injury to the child." Alessandra Pettit, a lawyer at Stacks Law Firm who specialises in fighting for survivors of historical sexual abuse, said now that the law has been expanded, survivors of institutional child sexual abuse will be able to bring claims against institutions, even if the perpetrator of the abuse was not an employee. STACKS LAW FIRM Madaline Shepherd Licensed Conveyancer 02 6592 6592 taree.stacklaw.com.au Partners in life The Legal Light Justin Stack High Court rules church liable for priest's sexual abuse Australia's highest court has widened the door to claims for compensation for historical sexual abuse , by overturning a longstanding ruling that an institution could not be sued for criminal actions of its representatives because it did not owe a duty to ensure criminal acts were not committed by its delegates . In a landmark decision on 11 February 2026 , the High Court found the Catholic Church liable for the harm caused to a 13 - year - old boy who suffered abuse at the hands of a paedophile priest in the late 1960s . Before this decision , abuse victims trying to sue institutions such as churches , schools , sporting organisations and scout groups faced a major legal hurdle , as the 2024 High Court decision in Bird v DP found that the doctrine of vicarious liability did not extend to people in a position " akin to an employee " , such as volunteers , priests and coaches . The 2026 case before the High Court involved a Newcastle assistant priest accused of abusing a boy known as AA in a presbytery in 1969 , causing injury and ongoing psychological harm . In 2024 a NSW Supreme Court judge accepted the assaults had happened , found the church was vicariously liable and awarded $ 636,840 to AA . The trustees of the Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland - Newcastle appealed , and the ruling was overturned on the basis that the diocese was not aware the priest was a danger to children . In the period between the judgment and the appeal , the High Court had handed down its decision in Bird v DP , which confined vicarious liability to employees only , not people in a position " akin to an employee " , such as priests . In the AA case in the High Court , the victim's lawyers argued the diocese had a " non - delegable duty " to ensure reasonable care was taken of children in its care . A non - delegable duty is used to justify the imposition of liability on one person for the negligence of another who is entrusted with a task . In a majority decision the High Court agreed , saying the diocese had a duty to ensure that while AA was " under the care , supervision or control of a priest ... performing a function of a priest , that reasonable care was taken to prevent reasonably foreseeable personal injury to the child . " Alessandra Pettit , a lawyer at Stacks Law Firm who specialises in fighting for survivors of historical sexual abuse , said now that the law has been expanded , survivors of institutional child sexual abuse will be able to bring claims against institutions , even if the perpetrator of the abuse was not an employee . STACKS LAW FIRM Madaline Shepherd Licensed Conveyancer 02 6592 6592 taree.stacklaw.com.au Partners in life