From Silence to Accountability: Australia’s Evolving Child Abuse Litigation Landscape
Introduction
Australia’s legal approach to institutional child abuse litigation has undergone significant change over the past decade. Following the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, legislatures and courts have increasingly focused on improving access to justice for survivors and expanding the accountability of organisations such as schools, churches, sporting bodies and welfare institutions.
Removal of Limitation Periods
One of the most significant reforms has been the removal of limitation periods for civil claims relating to child abuse across Australian jurisdictions. Survivors can now bring historical abuse claims decades after the abuse occurred. The removal of the limitation periods recognises the psychological barriers survivors face that often delay disclosure.
Expanding Institutional Liability
A central issue in recent litigation has been the scope of institutional liability. Historically, organisations were commonly sued on the basis of negligence or vicarious liability. However, the decision in Bird v DP (a pseudonym) [2024] HCA 41 significantly reshaped this area of law.
In that case, the High Court held that vicarious liability generally applies only to formal employment relationships and does not automatically extend to clergy or others in relationships “akin to employment” (High Court of Australia).
The decision has created concern that some institutions could avoid liability where perpetrators were volunteers, clergy members or contractors rather than employees. In response to this concern, several jurisdictions across Australia have moved to introduce legislation expanding vicarious liability to relationships similar to or akin to employment.
These reforms are intended to restore broader institutional accountability for abuse occurring within organisational settings.
Jurisdictions in Australia have also introduced “proper defendant” legislation to prevent institutions from avoiding liability. Historically, some institutions have been able to avoid being sued for child sexual abuse through complex corporate or trust structures meaning that there is no legal personality able to be sued. Changes to legislation ensures that survivors of child sexual abuse can sue unincorporated institutions by forcing them to nominate a legal entity that is able to be sued, and which has sufficient assets to pay compensation.
Non-Delegable Duties and Direct Negligence
At the same time, Australian courts have continued to develop principles in relation to non-delegable duties of care and direct negligence by institutions. In AA v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle [2026] HCA 2, the High Court recognised that institutions may owe a duty to protect children from foreseeable abuse by those acting under their authority.
The decision is arguably a landmark development in institutional liability law because it confirmed that non-delegable duties of care may extend to intentional criminal acts committed by delegates acting within institutional settings.
Conclusion
Overall, the legal landscape in Australia regarding child sexual abuse continues to evolve. While recent judicial decisions have clarified some aspects of institutional liability, legislative reforms demonstrate a policy trend toward strengthening survivor rights and increasing organisational accountability for child abuse occurring within institutional settings.
Sources and References
- Bird v DP (a pseudonym) [2024]
- AA v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle [2026]
- McInnes Wilson Lawyers - Case Note: AA v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle [2026], J Craig, B Wall & Ors (16 Feb 2026)
- K & L Gates - Case Note: AA v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Maitland Newcastle [2026], E Dawes, H Jankiewicz (24 Feb 2026)
- Mills Oakley – Case Note: AA v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle [2026], L Geary, S Parsons (13 Feb 2026)
- Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (2017) Final Report
Sentara Consulting provides this information for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute professional advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for independent advice tailored to your particular circumstances.
