Litigation

The Victorian government is seeking to overturn the High Court’s decision in Bird v DP which held that instituions cannot be held vicariously liable for individuals who are not technically employees.

Once marketed as a safe space for play, Roblox is now at the centre of worldwide investigations into child exploitation and online grooming. In the US, lawsuits allege systemic safety failures, whilst in Australia the incoming under-16 social-media is forcing lawmakers and regulators ot consider how far should the law go to make digital playgrounds truly safe?

A major class action against the Commonwealth alleges that decades of abuse within the Australian Defence Force were the result of systemic cultural failures not isolated misconduct. The litigation argues that the ADF breached its duty to protect members from forseeable harm, and has the potential to reshape the landscape of institutional accountability within Australia.

The Catholic Church grapples with decades of abuse scandals. Pope Leo XIV’s reforms and Australia’s legal response signal a new era of accountability and survivor-led change.

From December 2025, Australia mandates social media age restrictions to protect children from online harms like exploitation, amid rising reports and challenges in enforcement, privacy, and AI-generated abuse content. A crucial step with complex implications.

Nearly a decade after the Royal Commission exposed systemic abuse across Australia’s institutions, survivors continue to face formidable legal barriers. The High Court’s decision in Bird v DP (2024) has reignited debate over institutional accountability, prompting the ACT to lead a new wave of reform.

AI-generated child sexual abuse material may be digital but its impacts are very real – causing trauma, reputational harm and fuelling exploitation. Increasingly, the law is treating this material as seriously as recorded abuse, elucidating the urgent need for reform, accountability and victim support.

The Meredith case spotlights NSW’s controversial strip-search practices, revealing systemic misuse, legal ambiguity, and serious harms. As a catalyst for class action, it raises urgent questions about police accountability, civil liberty, and meaningful reform.

Reynolds v Higgins is more than a headline dispute. It highlights how Australian defamation law struggles with cost, privacy, and institutional power—especially online—revealing why reform is needed to better balance reputation, accountability, and free expression.