The High Court of Australia’s ruling in Bird v DP [2024] HCA 41, delivered on 13 November 2024, has sent shockwaves through the legal landscape, redefining the boundaries of institutional accountability in historical abuse cases. This landmark decision, culminating a series of legal battles, has sparked intense debate among survivors, legal professionals, and policymakers, while prompting legislative responses across Australia.
A Legal Journey Through the Courts
The case originated with DP v Bird [2021] VSC 850 in the Victorian Supreme Court, where DP (a pseudonym) sought damages from the Catholic Diocese of Ballarat for psychological injuries caused by alleged assaults by assistant priest Father Coffey in the 1970s. The trial judge confirmed the assaults but found the Diocese not negligent, as there was no evidence the Bishop knew or should have known of the risk. However, the court held the Diocese vicariously liable, citing the unique relationship between the Diocese and Coffey under Canon Law.
The Victorian Court of Appeal in Bird v DP [2023] VSCA 66 upheld this finding, emphasizing that Canon Law granted the Bishop control over Coffey, whose pastoral role was integral to the Diocese’s functions. The court noted that Coffey’s duties, including social interactions with parishioners, enabled the misconduct, aligning with principles from Prince Alfred College v ADC [2016] HCA.
The High Court’s ruling in Bird v DP [2024] HCA 41 overturned these decisions, with the majority (Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, and Beech-Jones JJ) ruling that vicarious liability in Australia applies only to employer/employee relationships. The absence of such a relationship between the Diocese and Coffey meant the Diocese was not liable. The majority argued:
- Limited Scope of Vicarious Liability: The doctrine, rooted in policy rather than analytical jurisprudence, risks uncertainty if extended to relationships “akin to employment,” such as priest-diocese dynamics.
- Critique of UK Precedents: UK cases extending vicarious liability to non-employment contexts (e.g., religious service) have led to problematic applications, reinforcing the need for caution in Australia.
- Legislative Role: Post-Royal Commission reforms to facilitate survivor claims were prospective, not retrospective, indicating no intent to expand vicarious liability retroactively.
- Non-Delegable Duty: This issue was not considered, as it was not raised in lower courts.
In a dissenting opinion, Gleeson J argued that vicarious liability could extend to relationships “akin to employment” and that the Diocese-Coffey relationship qualified. However, she concluded that the misconduct did not occur in the course of Coffey’s role, as it provided the opportunity but not the occasion for the harm.
Impact on Survivors and the Legal System
The Bird v DP decision has intensified discussions about justice in historical abuse cases. Survivors face significant legal and emotional hurdles, and this ruling adds complexity to their pursuit of redress. By limiting vicarious liability to employment relationships, the High Court has raised the bar for holding institutions accountable, prompting concerns about access to justice. The decision’s application beyond Victoria, including in New South Wales, underscores its national significance.
Legislative Responses
The ruling has galvanized legislative action to address gaps in institutional accountability:
- Victoria: Attorney-General Sonya Kilkenny announced plans to introduce retrospective vicarious liability laws by the end of 2025, aiming to enable survivors to hold institutions accountable for historical abuse.
- Australian Capital Territory: The ACT Greens have introduced the Civil Law (Wrongs) (Organisational Child Abuse Liability) Amendment Bill 2025, seeking to strengthen institutional liability for child abuse.
These developments reflect a broader push to align legal frameworks with the needs of survivors, particularly following the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
What’s Next?
The legal community is closely monitoring related cases, including AA v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle [2024] NSWSC 1183, with its appeal ([2025] NSWCA 72) heard by the High Court on 7 August 2025. These proceedings may further clarify the scope of institutional liability. Additionally, concerns about “claims farming” have entered the conversation, raising questions about the integrity and direction of historical abuse litigation.
Looking Ahead
The Bird v DP decision marks a pivotal moment in Australian law, highlighting the tension between judicial restraint and the evolving needs of survivors. As legislatures respond with potential reforms, and further High Court decisions loom, the future of institutional abuse litigation remains dynamic. Legal practitioners and survivor advocates will continue to push for clarity and fairness in this sensitive area of law.
The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources. If you do not wish to receive newsletters from us, please let us know.