by Professor Paula Giliker, University of Bristol Law School
On 17 June 2025, the High Court of Australia (HCA) gave special permission to appeal in AA v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle ABN [2025] HCA Trans 47. The matter is listed for hearing in the HCA on 7 August 2025. AA involves a claim by the plaintiff who, in 1969 (then aged 13), was allegedly sexually abused by an assistant priest in a local church presbytery after being invited there to consume alcohol, smoke cigarettes and play on a gambling machine in the priest’s bedroom. At first instance ([2024] NSWSC 1183), the judge had found the Catholic Diocese to be vicariously liable for the priest’s wrongdoing and that the Church had breached its duty of care to the plaintiff. However, judgment was given before the game-changing decision of the HCA in Bird v DP [2024] HCA 41. As I have discussed earlier, in Bird, the majority of the HCA held that, in Australia, the principles of vicarious liability are confined to employment relationships. On this basis, the torts of priests, who are not technically employees, would not be covered by vicarious liability. The HCA rejected the suggestion, found in UK cases such as The Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants (CCWS) [2012] UKSC 56 and in Canada that the relationship test for vicarious liability could be extended to relationships “akin to employment” (that is, relationships not technically of employment but practically very similar in nature). This, argued the majority, would produce uncertainty and indeterminacy. (more…)
