AA v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle [2026] HCA 2

The High Court has recently delivered a significant judgment that reshapes the law regarding liability of institutions for historical sexual abuse.

In 1969, whilst he was a student, AA was sexually assaulted on multiple occasions at the age of 13, by a priest of the Diocese. At trial, the judge accepted AA’s evidence, finding that the assaults occurred and that the Diocese was liable for the harm suffered. However, the NSW Court of Appeal later overturned that decision, concluding that the Diocese owed no relevant duty of care and that any non-delegable duty could not extend to intentional criminal acts, such as sexual assault.

Historically, liability of institutions in abuse cases has often depended on the legal principle vicarious liability. However, that pathway has been significantly constrained in cases involving clergy. In Bird v DP, the High Court held that religious institutions are not automatically vicariously liable for the misconduct of priests due to the unique and often informal nature of their “employment” relationship. As a result, many victims have faced substantial barriers when attempting to hold institutions legally responsible for abuse perpetrated by clergy.

AA’s case ultimately reached the High Court, which took a different approach. The High Court held that a non-delegable duty arises where an entity, such as the Diocese, undertakes the care or control of another, or assumes responsibility for their safety. In those circumstances, the institution cannot avoid liability by delegating those responsibilities to others.

On the facts in this case, the High Court found that the Diocese owed AA a non-delegable duty of care, and the priest’s sexual assaults breached that duty, causing AA the harm as found by the primary judge.

The decision is particularly significant when read alongside Bird. While Bird narrowed the scope of vicarious liability in clergy abuse cases, AA confirms that institutions may still be liable through the doctrine of non-delegable duty, even where the wrongdoing involves intentional criminal acts.

This clarification is likely to have substantial consequences for historical abuse claims in Australia. Many claims that faced difficulties under previous vicarious liability principles may now be successful on the basis that institutions assumed responsibility for the care and protection of children.

The High Court’s decision in AA therefore represents an important development in Australian negligence law and may reshape how courts assess institutional accountability in historical sexual abuse cases going forward.