AA v Maitland-Newcastle High Court Case

Tomorrow, 11 February, the High Court will hand down judgment in AA v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle.

Parties and representation

The appellant, AA (a pseudonym), is represented by Ross Koffel of Koffels Solicitors and Barristers. The respondent, the Diocese, is represented by Makinson d’Apice Lawyers.

Procedural History

AA succeeded in both negligence and vicarious liability, at first instance, before Schmidt AJ – AA v Trustees for the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle [2024] NSWSC 1183.

The Diocese successfully appealed the decision to the NSW Court of Appeal – Trustees for the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle v AA [2025] NSWCA 72.

On 17 June 2025, AA successfully sought and obtained special leave to appeal to the High Court.

On 7 August 2025, the full bench of the High Court heard the appeal.

Grounds of Appeal

There were two grounds of appeal, being whether:

The Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle did not owe the appellant a non-delegable duty of care in respect of the sexual abuse committed against him by Fr Ronald Pickin, either at common law or by reason of s 5Q of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).
The Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle did not owe the appellant any duty of care in negligence in respect of the sexual abuse committed against him by Fr Pickin.

Non-delegable duty

The doctrine of non-delegable duty is a legal mechanism of attributing liability to a defendant for the wrongdoing of another. It is a personal duty the liability for which cannot be legally delegated to another.

To date, liability for child sexual abuse claims according to the doctrine of non-delegable duty has been prevented based on the orthodox understanding of the majority in State of NSW v Lepore [2003] HCA 4. In essence, liability for breach of a non-delegable duty of care does not extend to the intentional criminal conduct of another.

Any extension of the doctrine would require the High Court to extend non-delegable duties to include intentional wrongdoing, such as child abuse.

This would have a major impact for survivors adversely affected by Bird v DP [2024] HCA 41.

Negligence

In respect of the general duty of care, the appeal raises a fundamental question in law relating to historical sexual abuse. In the 1960s, did a Catholic Diocese, sued through the proper defendant, owe a duty of care to a child entrusted to pastoral care, who is the victim of child sexual assault on church property.

Relevant issues to this inquiry include reasonable foreseeability, knowledge that can be attributed to an institution, and the relevant factors to the existence of a duty overall.

Looking ahead

Judgment is expected imminently. Once delivered, close attention will be paid not only to the result, but to the Court’s reasoning on ordinary and non-delegable duty of care, statutory interpretation and institutional responsibility.

Practitioners acting in institutional liability and historical abuse matters will be watching this one closely.

For commentary on the broader context of institutional abuse law, see:

Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. The content reflects the position as at 10 February 2026 and will be updated following delivery of the High Court’s judgment.

News