Vicarious Liability for Organisations (Vic)
In February 2026, the Victorian parliament passed legislation making it clear that organisations in the state can be held vicariously liable for torts committed against children in their care. This page outlines the changes, their implications, and the community responses.
Legislation
The Wrongs Amendment (Vicarious Liability) Bill 2026 makes changes to the Wrongs Act 1958.
Background
The changes were passed in response to a High Court decision that was handed down in 2024.
In the matter of Bird v DP, the Roman Catholic diocese of Ballarat appealed to the High Court of Australia against a finding by the Victorian Supreme Court that it was vicariously liable for harm caused to a child by a priest, Father Coffey.
Vicarious liability is a common law principle under which certain parties can be held responsible for acts done by persons acting under their control and authority — such as an employer for the act of an employee.
Father Coffey was not an employee of the Diocese; rather, he was working under an arrangement overseen by Canon Law. DP was a child who was sexually abused by Father Coffey during two pastoral visits to his house in 1971.
The Diocese argued that it was not vicariously liable for the acts of Father Coffey as it was not in an employer/employee relationship with him.
The High Court found in favour of the Diocese, ruling that Father Coffey was engaged in a ‘relationship akin to employment’ with the Diocese, but as he was not an employee the Diocese was not vicariously liable. This decision meant that many victims of abuse by the clergy across the country were left without recourse to damages through the courts, if they could not establish vicarious liability.
However, in February 2026, the High Court handed down a decision in the matter of AA v Trustees, where it found the Catholic Diocese liable for abuse committed by a priest on the basis of a non-delegable duty of care owed to the children under its control. The decision in Bird v DP has not been overturned; however, there is now another pathway to establishing liability for abuse by clergy.
The new legislation
The Victorian parliament sought to rectify the gap left after the High Court’s decision in Bird v DP, by explicitly legislating for vicarious liability for organisations that have control of children, regardless of whether a person was working within a traditional employee/employer relationship, or in a less formal ‘relationship akin to employment’.
Relevant organisations
Under the new legislation, relevant organisations have vicarious liability for harm done to children by persons akin to employees.
Relevant organisations include entities organised to do work that includes the care, supervision, and control of children, bodies corporate, government departments, NGOs, and the Victorian police.
This means that organisations in Victoria, including churches, will have vicarious liability for torts committed by persons who are not strictly their employees, even where no such vicarious liability exists under common law.
Who is akin to an employee?
The legislation states that a person is akin to an employee if:
- they carry out activities; and
- those activities are carried out as part of the activities of the organisation; and
- for the benefit of the organisation; and
- those activities are not carried out for an independent business operated by the person or another organisation.
Employees
The legislation also states that an organisation is vicariously liable for the abuse of a child by an employee if:
- the apparent performance by the employee of a role in which the organisation placed the employee supplies the occasion for the perpetration of the abuse by the employee; and
- the employee takes advantage of that occasion to perpetrate the abuse of the child.
An organisation is also vicariously liable for act done by its employees under the common law.
Implications of the changes
The passage of this new legislation means that in Victoria, victims of abuse perpetrated by persons in ‘relationships akin to employment’, such as priests, will be able to claim damages on the basis that the organisation involved is vicarious liable.
However, victims of abuse perpetrated by persons in ‘relationships akin to employment’ who are outside of Victoria, will be unable to claim damages on the basis of vicarious liability as the High Court decision of Bird v DP still stands. These claimants will, however, be able to seek damages on the basis of a non-delegable duty of care owed by the organisation.
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.