The High Court’s decision in AA v The Trustees of The Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle marks an important shift in the law around institutional child abuse.
In simple terms, the Court has clarified when institutions can be legally responsible for child abuse committed by clergy and others placed in positions of authority. Importantly, it has strengthened the legal pathway for survivors who are seeking accountability.
At the centre of the decision is a legal concept known as a non-delegable duty of care. For many survivors of abuse in schools, churches, foster care, sporting organisations and other institutions, the legal process hasn’t just been shaped by trauma. It’s also been shaped by complex legal arguments raised in response to their claims.
Some institutions have argued that abuse did not occur “in the course of employment”, or that they had no prior notice that a particular offender posed a risk. In some cases, those technical arguments narrowed claims or created significant hurdles before a survivor’s experience could even be properly examined.
The High Court has now made clear that where an institution has taken on responsibility for a child’s care and control, it may be directly liable for abuse that occurs in that setting. It cannot discharge or delegate this responsibility simply by entrusting it to another person, such as a priest.
This applies even if the abuse was an intentional criminal act, they did not know about a particular risk or did not have prior notice about the specific offender. Where a non-delegable duty of care exists, that responsibility can’t simply be shifted elsewhere. As Sheree Buchanan, our Head of Abuse Law, explains, “When an institution takes responsibility for a child, it also takes responsibility for that child’s safety. This decision reinforces that principle in a very clear way.”
A specialist lawyer will review your circumstances and tell you how much you can claim.
In practical terms, this decision brings religious institutions into clearer alignment with how the law treats schools and other organisations entrusted with children. The focus is likely to shift away from narrow technical questions about employment relationships or what an institution knew about a particular offender. Instead, there will be greater emphasis on the core issue: the child was in the institution’s care and under its authority when the harm occurred.
That shift matters makes a real difference in how cases will be treated. It reflects how many survivors understand their experience. They were placed in an environment where they were expected to be safe. They were required to trust the institution. They relied on it for protection, and that protection failed.
Importantly, this decision does not remove the need to prove that abuse occurred. Survivors still need to establish what happened to them. That can be complex, especially when abuse occurred decades ago, records are limited, or someone has carried their experience in silence for many years.
The evidentiary burden remains. What has changed is the ability of institutions to defeat claims purely through narrow technical arguments about employment status or lack of prior knowledge.
This decision does not increase compensation caps, and it does not guarantee success in every case. It also won’t reopen matters that have already been finally determined. But it does strengthen the legal framework for justice to be achieved.
For many survivors, the process is not ultimately about money. It’s about recognition. It’s about being heard, being believed, and having wrongdoing acknowledged. It’s about responsibility being accepted, rather than deflected.
“For many of our clients, justice means having their experience recognised and taken seriously. Legal accountability is part of that. This decision helps ensure institutions can’t step away from the responsibility they assumed.”
– Sheree Buchanan, Head of Abuse Law.
At Law Partners, we believe that when an institution accepts responsibility for children, it must also accept accountability if that duty is breached. The High Court’s decision reinforces that principle. Survivors of institutional child abuse in NSW and Victoria or across Australia may have legal options available, depending on their circumstances.
If you’re considering your options, or you simply want to understand what this decision might mean for you, we’re here to have a confidential conversation when you’re ready. There’s no pressure and no obligation, just a chance to talk through your situation and your options in plain language.
Request a callback