Legal changes affecting institutional abuse survivors

Content note: This article discusses legal reforms relating to historical institutional child sexual abuse. Please take care when reading.

Recent court decisions and legislative reforms have brought greater focus to institutional responsibility in historical child sexual abuse claims.

The High Court’s decision in AA v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle [2026] HCA 2, together with legislative reform in Victoria and reforms already enacted in the ACT, reflects the continued evolution of institutional liability for historical child sexual abuse compensation claims.

These developments are important and form part of an ongoing legal shift, rather than a final resolution.

The High Court decision, AA

In AA, the High Court confirmed that a diocese can, in appropriate circumstances, be held liable for abuse through breach of a non-delegable duty owed to children in its care.

Importantly, the Court recognised that this duty is not limited to careless or negligent conduct. In cases of child sexual abuse, the duty may extend to deliberate, intentional wrongdoing by individuals placed in positions of authority within the institution.

In practical terms, this means an institution cannot avoid responsibility simply because the harm was caused by intentional criminal conduct rather than negligence.

Legislative reform in Victoria and the ACT

The High Court in Bird v DP (A Pseudonym) [2024] HCA 41 accepted that the abuse had occurred but found that institutional liability did not attach because of the legal characterisation of the relationship between Father Bird and the diocese. It found that vicarious liability could only be found in employee and employer relationships. Father Bird was not formally employed by the Church. Since then, there have been significant concerns raised in all jurisdictions regarding urgent legal reforms to be introduced.

On 16 February 2026, Victoria passed The Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse ) Bill 2025. The reforms close a legal loophole that institutions have relied upon previously. Institutions can now be held responsible for those relationships that are akin to employment.

In October 2025, the ACT was the first jurisdiction to pass similar legislation. Both sets of legislation apply retrospectively and allow survivors to file applications to have previously entered into settlement agreements set aside. It is anticipated that the remaining jurisdictions will also follow the ACT and Victoria.

Together, these developments reflect a legislative intention that abuse claims turn on accountability and not institutional architecture.

What this means for abuse survivors

The recent reforms are intended to close gaps that previously allowed institutions to attempt to avoid liability on technical grounds.

Survivors are now in a stronger position where institutional responsibility is disputed. Each claim will still turn on its facts. The framework for assessing institutional liability, however, is much clearer than it was previously.