High Court Finds Catholic Church Liable for Priest’s Sexual Abuse
On 11 February 2026, the High Court of Australia handed down a decision in the matter of AA v The Trustees for the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle. The judgment is a very significant one in the fight for compensation for victims of abuse by the clergy. This page outlines the decision, its implications, and how it has been received.
The decision
AA experienced sexual abuse perpetrated by Father Pickin, a priest of the Catholic Diocese, in 1969, when AA was aged 13.
AA sued the Catholic Church in the Supreme Court of New South Wales for the harm he suffered. The Supreme Court found that the Catholic Church had been vicariously liable for the actions of Father Pickin, that the church had owed AA a duty of care, and that AA was entitled to damages.
However, after the diocese appealed, the decision was overturned.
The Court of Appeal found that the decision could not stand after the High Court’s 2024 decision in Bird v DP, which ruled that the Catholic Church did not have vicarious liability for acts committed by priests who were not employees, but were working in ‘relationships kin to employment’.
It found that the Diocese did not owe AA a common law duty of care, and that there was no non-delegable duty of care that extended to an intentional criminal act by a priest.
AA appealed to the High Court. The High Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision, finding that the Diocese had a non-delegable duty of care to AA and that this duty was breached by Father Pickin’s act. The Diocese owed AA damages, subject to the limitations set out in the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).
Does this decision overturn Bird v DP?
The decision of AA v Trustees means that many victims of sexual abuse committed by priests of the Roman Catholic Church will now be eligible for compensation. However, this decision does not directly overturn the 2024 decision of Bird v DP.
In Bird v DP, the High Court found that the Diocese did not have vicarious liability for acts committed by priests who are not employees but rather, are in a relationship with the Diocese that is governed by Canon law. That principal has not been overturned. Vicarious liability remains limited to relationships that can be strictly characterised as employee/employer relationships.
The decision of AA v Trustees follows a different route to find the Diocese liable. Rather than relying on vicarious liability, it finds that the Diocese owed a non-delegable duty of care to the plaintiff that extends to intentional criminal acts by priests. This means that instead of being found vicariously liable for priest’s act under principles of employment law, the Diocese is being held responsible for its own failure to ensure that a non-delegable duty of care owed directly to children under its control was not breached.
Significance of the decision
The decision of AA v Trustees opens the door to more claims against the Catholic Church by victims of abuse, as victims no longer have to rely on the argument that the perpetrator was an employee of the Diocese, and the decision is clear that liability exists even in relation to intentional criminal conduct.
Many survivors of historical abuse who were previously excluded from making claims because of the absence of a formal employment relationship, now have a legal pathway to seek damages.
The judgment has been described as one of the most significant rulings on institutional liability for historic child sexual abuse in Australia
Responses to the decision
Many survivor and victim advocacy organisations have welcomed the decision as a landmark victory that recognises institutional accountability and ensures that the church and other institutions will be held responsible for abuse committed against children in their care.
The Australian Catholic Safeguarding Ltd and survivor networks have stated that the decision provides hope for justice for victims of abuse whose claims were previously excluded.
The Catholic Church and other religious institutions have expressed concern about the decision’s broader implications for liability, insurance costs, and historical claims, with some dioceses indicating they may seek policy changes or further clarification about scope and exposure.
If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Go To Court Lawyers.
Fernanda Dahlstrom is a writer, editor and lawyer. She holds a Bachelor of Laws (Latrobe University), a Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice (College of Law), a Bachelor of Arts (The University of Melbourne) and a Master of Arts (Deakin University). Fernanda practised law for eight years, working in criminal law, child protection and domestic violence law in the Northern Territory, and in family law in Queensland.