On 11 February 2026, the High Court of Australia delivered the most significant decision in institutional child sexual abuse law in over 20 years.

The case, AA v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle, clarifies when institutions can be held legally responsible for abuse committed by those they place in authority. This decision directly addresses the uncertainty created by the 2024 High Court ruling in Bird v DP, which many institutions relied upon to avoid liability. For survivors currently negotiating compensation or considering settlement, this development may materially affect the value and strength of their claims.

Background: What Was The Impact Of Bird v DP?

The 2024 High Court decision in Bird v DP stated that only an employer/employee legal relationship can attract ‘vicarious liability’ – that is that the employer must pay damages for their employees’ negligence or assaults. The High Court made it clear that as the church/priest and the organisation/volunteer relationships are not employer/employee relationships then there is no ‘vicarious liability’. This means the church would not pay a cent for their priests’ sexual assaults of children. The same went for Scouts and their volunteer scoutmasters.

This argument significantly altered negotiations across Australia. Over the past year:

• Mediations stalled.
• Religious organisations only made derisory, insignificant offers of settlement.
• Claims were reassessed under a narrower liability framework.
• Survivors faced additional legal obstacles.

The 2026 High Court Decision:
AA v The Trustees Of The Roman Catholic Church For The Diocese Of Maitland-Newcastle

In February 2026, the High Court looked at the relationship between the assaulted child and the church, as opposed to the child/priest and the church/priest legal relationship. The central issue before the Court was whether institutions owe what is known as a ‘non-delegable duty’ to children in their care, and whether that duty extends to intentional criminal acts, such as sexual assault, committed by those the institutions placed in authority.

The High Court confirmed that it does.

Also, it does not matter that the church/organisation was not negligent themselves – they are still liable for their ‘delegate’ who assaulted the child.
In deciding AA, the High Court overturned its own decision from 2003 in Lapore v The State of New South Wales to include sexual assaults as acts that are included within ‘non-delegable duties’. Statistically, the High Court only overturns its own decisions once in a generation!

What Is A Non-Delegable Duty?

Put simply, a non-delegable duty means an organisation cannot shift responsibility, or ‘pass the buck’ onto someone else.
If an institution places an adult in authority over children – whether a priest, teacher, volunteer, coach, scoutmaster or foster carer – the institution remains legally responsible for ensuring reasonable care is taken for those children’s safety. Institutions cannot distance themselves from abuse simply because they were not the direct perpetrator.

Why This Decision Is Significant

This decision is notable because it clarifies the scope of institutional responsibility and reduces reliance on the narrow employer-employee framework that arose in Bird v DP.
Practically, this may:

• Significantly strengthen survivor claims currently before the courts
• Increase the negotiating position of claimants
• Re-open discussions in matters previously assessed conservatively
• Positively affect ongoing mediations and settlement negotiations for survivors

Who Does This Apply To?

The ruling may apply to institutions responsible for the care, supervision or control of children, including:

• Religious organisations
• Schools
• Government bodies
• Sporting clubs
• Youth organisations
• Community groups
• Scouts
• Foster care providers

The key factor is whether the organisation undertook responsibility for children and placed individuals in positions of authority.

What Does This Mean For Compensation?

Each claim depends on its specific circumstances. However, the removal of a significant legal barrier may affect:

• How liability is assessed
• The strength of negotiating positions
• The value of settlement offers
• The likely outcome if a matter proceeds to trial

Survivors who have received reduced offers based on liability arguments connected to Bird v DP may wish to obtain updated advice.
Those currently in mediation or considering settlement should be aware that the legal framework has changed.

Should You Revisit Your Claim?

You may wish to seek updated legal advice if you:

• Are currently negotiating settlement
• Have received an offer you have not yet accepted
• Were advised your claim was difficult because the abuser was not an employee
• Are considering commencing proceedings
• Are participating in the National Redress Scheme

It is particularly important to obtain advice before signing any settlement agreement.

Does This Affect Redress Schemes?

Yes it does. Once you accept a National Redress Scheme award which is capped at a maximum of $1,500 or an average of about $88,000, you are forbidden from taking legal action against the institution. A legal claim against a church/institution is usually worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Legal advice before accepting a National Redress award is essential.

The Importance Of Updated Advice

Legal developments of this scale can significantly alter the strength and value of claims.
While no outcome can be guaranteed, the High Court of Australia has clarified that institutions cannot avoid responsibility solely because the abuser was not technically an employee.

The law has changed. It is important that survivors are aware of their rights before finalising any agreement.

Confidential Advice

If you would like to understand how the 2026 High Court decision may affect your circumstances, please contact Porters Lawyers for a confidential discussion.