Today, the High Court of Australia has delivered one of the most significant decisions for victim survivors of childhood sexual abuse in AA v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle [2026] HCA 2.

The court confirmed that institutions, the Court allowed the survivor’s appeal and, importantly, confirmed that institutions, such as dioceses, can owe, and breach, a non-delegable duty of care when an individual commits an intentional criminal act.

This landmark ruling strengthens the ability of survivors of childhood sexual abuse to pursue compensation against institutions such as churches, schools and other organisations responsible for the care of children and vulnerable people, marking a profound and transformative step forward.

In this article Associate, Natasha Robins explains the landmark case, the Court’s decision, and what this means for survivors of institutional abuse.

Background

The appellant, known as AA, was sexually assaulted in 1969 at the age of 13 by Father Pickin, a priest of the Diocese of Maitland Newcastle.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales found that the abuse occurred on multiple occasions in the presbytery and caused significant psychological harm. The trial judge held the Diocese liable on several grounds, including negligence and vicarious liability.

However, in 2025, the New South Wales Court of Appeal overturned that decision. The Court of Appeal held that the Diocese did not owe a common law duty of care and could not owe a non-delegable duty in respect of intentional criminal conduct committed by the priest. As a result, the Diocese was not held liable.

AA appealed to the High Court of Australia.

The High Court’s Decision

By majority, the High Court allowed the appeal and made several important findings, importantly that the Diocese was liable to AA for breach of a non-delegable duty of care it owed to AA in 1969.

In their judgment, the Court addressed questions of foreseeability, institutional knowledge and historical context and confirmed that a non-delegable duty may be breached by the intention conduct of the duty-holder or their delegate, thereby overturning the principles established in Lepore.

Further, it was held that AA’s entitlement to damages is subject to assessment under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).

What is a Non-Delegable Duty of Care?

A non-delegable duty of care is a special legal duty that arises where an institution assumes responsibility for the care, supervision or control of another person, particularly a child or vulnerable individual.

In simple terms, it means the institution cannot escape liability by arguing that someone else committed the wrongdoing, which may amount to a criminal act.

If an organisation undertakes responsibility for the safety of a child, it remains legally responsible for ensuring reasonable care is taken to protect that child. The duty cannot be delegated in a way that avoids liability.

This concept is especially important in institutional abuse claims. Survivors often face arguments that the abuse was a personal act of the perpetrator and not the responsibility of the institution. The High Court has now confirmed that this argument does not automatically defeat a survivor’s claim.

Why This Decision Is So Significant?

The High Court’s ruling has far-reaching consequences for institutional abuse claims across Australia:

1. A non-delegable duty of care can be breached by the intentional criminal acts of an individual associated with an institution.
2. It strengthens the legal accountability of institutions responsible for the well-being of children and vulnerable people.
3. It removes previous hurdles for survivors seeking compensation.

The decision confirms that institutions assume responsibility for the well-being of children, and should be held accountable when harm occurs within their organisations.

What This Means for Survivors of Institutional Abuse

For survivors of childhood sexual abuse, this decision offers renewed hope for fair and just outcomes.

Many survivors have encountered legal barriers when bringing civil claims against churches, schools, sporting clubs, and other institutions. Arguments about foreseeability, the scope of duty, and responsibility have often complicated or delayed proceedings. In particular, the recent decision made by the High Court in Bird v DP (a Pseudonym) [2024] HCA 41 refused to extend the boundaries of vicarious liability to relationships outside of employment. This decision had significant implications for survivors alleging vicarious liability against institutions in relation to the unlawful actions of individuals.

How Evolve Legal Can Help

At Evolve Legal, our team are experts in abuse law and understand that pursuing a claim for institutional abuse is not just a legal process. It is a deeply personal journey.

Our team provides confidential, compassionate, and experienced legal advice to survivors seeking accountability and compensation.

Importantly, legislative reforms in many Australian states have removed limitation periods for child abuse claims. This means that even abuse that occurred decades ago may still be the subject of a civil compensation claim.

However, each case depends on its specific facts. Survivors should seek experienced legal advice to understand their rights and options.

If you or someone you know experienced abuse within an institution, you may have legal rights. Contact Evolve Legal for confidential advice about your options.