A landmark Catholic Church abuse case has reached the High Court, focusing on whether dioceses owe a non-delegable duty of care to children abused by clergy. The outcome could reshape survivor claims across Australia.
SYDNEY, June 19, 2025 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- The High Court of Australia has granted special leave to appeal in the case of The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle v AA [2025] NSWCA 72, a significant legal matter involving historical child sexual abuse allegations.
The survivor, known as AA, is represented by Koffels Solicitors & Barristers. His claim relates to alleged abuse by Father Ronald Pickin, an assistant priest in the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle, dating back to 1969.
Background of the Case
In the original proceedings before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, AA alleged that Father Pickin sexually abused him at the presbytery, after providing him and a friend with alcohol and cigarettes.
In a ground-breaking judgment, the Supreme Court found:
- The abuse occurred;
- The Diocese was directly liable in negligence; and
- The Diocese was vicariously liable, despite the priest not being a formal employee.
This was the first judgment in Australia to hold a Catholic Diocese both directly and vicariously liable for abuse by a priest. Damages were awarded to AA.
Diocese Appeals Supreme Court Ruling
The Diocese appealed the decision to the New South Wales Court of Appeal.
Following the trial judgment, the High Court of Australia handed down its decision in Bird v DP [2024] HCA 41, which confirmed that vicarious liability does not apply to clergy, as they are not considered employees in the legal sense. As a result, AA's legal team withdrew the vicarious liability argument on appeal. Instead, AA pursued the case on the basis that the Diocese owed him a duty of care, including a non-delegable duty of care, which cannot be outsourced or transferred.
NSW Court of Appeal Overturns Initial Decision
On 15 April 2025, the NSW Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, overturning the Supreme Court's findings.
Key elements of the judgment included:
- No duty of care: The Court held that the Diocese did not owe a duty of care to AA in 1969, as there was no evidence the Church knew, or should have known, about the risks posed by clergy at that time.
- Non-delegable duty rejected: The Court ruled that a non-delegable duty of care cannot be breached by intentional criminal acts, relying on the High Court precedent in New South Wales v Lepore.
- No factual determination required: While Ball J accepted that the abuse occurred, Bell CJ and Leeming J found that no duty of care existed and declined to make findings on the factual allegations, citing inconsistencies in AA's evidence.
As a result, the claim was dismissed in full
High Court Grants Special Leave to Appeal
On 13 May 2025, AA lodged an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The application raises important questions about the existence and scope of duties of care, including non-delegable duties, owed by Catholic Dioceses to children abused by clergy.
On 17 June 2025, Chief Justice Gageler, Justice Gordon, and Justice Jagot granted special leave, identifying the matter as an appropriate vehicle to consider the legal question of non-delegable duty in the context of intentional wrongdoing. In considering the appeal the Court may determine the required knowledge of an institution to establish foreseeability and under what circumstances a general duty is owed by an unincorporated institution.
The appeal has been formally listed for hearing before the High Court on 7 August 2025.
Media Contact
Ross Koffel, Koffels Solicitors and Barristers, 61 292835599, [email protected], https://koffels.com.au
SOURCE Koffels Solicitors and Barristers
Share this article