The High Court of Australia has delivered a significant judgment clarifying the responsibility of institutions for historic child sexual abuse.

In AA v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle [2026] HCA 2, the Court upheld a survivor’s appeal and found that the Diocese owed and breached a duty of care to a 13-year-old boy who was sexually abused by a parish priest in 1969.

The ruling overturns a New South Wales Court of Appeal decision and makes clear that institutions cannot avoid liability for historic abuse based on technical arguments about employment relationships.

Kim Price, Head of Abuse Law at Arnold Thomas & Becker, said:

“This is a significant development for survivors of historic institutional child abuse. Institutions entrusted with the care of children cannot escape responsibility on technical principles.”

“The judgment strengthens the position of survivors seeking to pursue civil claims against churches and other institutions, including schools, foster care and juvenile detention settings.”

The High Court clarified that where a child is placed in the care, control or supervision of an institution, that institution may bear direct responsibility for failing to take reasonable steps to protect that child from harm. The ruling revisits earlier High Court authority concerning non-delegable duties and intentional wrongdoing and confirms that liability is not automatically excluded merely because the conduct involved deliberate criminal acts.

Although the Court reduced the amount of damages awarded, the broader legal significance of the judgment is substantial. It strengthens the framework through which survivors of historic abuse may pursue civil claims against churches and other institutions, particularly in cases where traditional employment relationships are difficult to establish decades after the events.

This development represents a broader shift in Australian law over the past decade. 

Legislative reforms have removed limitation periods for child abuse claims and addressed structural barriers that once prevented survivors from bringing proceedings against unincorporated institutions. The High Court’s reasoning continues that trajectory by reinforcing institutional accountability where children were placed in positions of vulnerability.

For survivors, decisions such as this are not abstract exercises in legal principle. They speak directly to questions of recognition, responsibility and redress. For institutions, the message is clear: the existence of historical structural arrangements will not, of itself, shield an organisation from scrutiny where it exercised control over the circumstances in which abuse occurred.

Arnold Thomas & Becker has acted in hundreds of historic abuse matters and continues to advocate for reforms to ensure survivors have meaningful access to justice. If you or someone you know has been impacted by abuse, this ruling may have a significant impact on your ability to claim. If you’d like to speak to an abuse lawyer who has experience fighting The System, contact Arnold Thomas & Becker today on 1300 333 300