Koffels News

The high-profile case The Trustees of the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle v AA [2025] NSWCA 72 involves historical child sexual abuse allegations against the Catholic Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle.

The survivor, referred to as AA and represented by Koffels Solicitors & Barristers, brought a claim against the Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle in respect of this abuse.

What Were the Allegations?

In 1969, AA alleged he was sexually abused by Father Ronald Pickin, an assistant priest in the Diocese. The abuse allegedly occurred at the presbytery, where Pickin provided AA and a friend with alcohol and cigarettes before the assaults.

What Did the NSW Supreme Court Decide?

• The abuse occurred.
• The Diocese was directly liable in negligence for failing to protect AA.
• It was also vicariously liable, even though Father Pickin wasn’t technically an employee.

The Court awarded damages to AA. This was the first judgment in Australia to find a Diocese both directly and vicariously liable for abuse committed by a Catholic priest — a major legal development.

The Diocese’s Appeal

The Diocese appealed the decision to the NSW Court of Appeal.

Following the judgment, the High Court delivered its decision in Bird v DP [2024] HCA 41, confirming that vicarious liability does not apply to clergy, as they are not employees in the legal sense. The High Court clarified that vicarious liability applies only within employer-employee relationships.

AA’s legal team accepted that the vicarious liability argument could no longer succeed. However, they maintained that the Diocese remained liable on the basis of a general duty of care and a non-delegable duty of care.

NSW Court of Appeal Decision: [2025] NSWCA 72

On 15 April 2025, the Court of Appeal overturned the Supreme Court’s ruling. Key findings included:

• While Ball J found the abuse had occurred, Bell CJ and Leeming J noted inconsistencies in AA’s account and concluded they did not need to make a factual finding as no duty of care was owed.
• The Court found that the Diocese did not owe a duty of care in 1969, as there was no evidence it knew—or should have known—of the risks posed by priests at that time.
• The Court, applying the precedent in Lepore, held that a non-delegable duty of care cannot be breached by intentional criminal acts.

As a result, AA’s claim was dismissed in full.

Application for Leave to Appeal to the High Court

On 13 May 2025, AA lodged an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia in relation to the NSW Court of Appeal’s decision.

The application raises issues concerning the existence and nature of a duty of care, and whether a non-delegable duty of care is owed by Catholic Dioceses to children abused by clergy.

Special Leave Hearing – High Court

On 17 June 2025, Chief Justice Gageler, Justice Gordon, and Justice Jagot considered AA’s application for special leave. Leave was granted, with the matter accepted as a suitable vehicle to consider the issue of non-delegable duty in the context of intentional wrongdoing.

In hearing the appeal, the Court may also address the level of institutional knowledge required to establish foreseeability, and the circumstances under which a general duty is owed by an unincorporated entity such as a Diocese.

The matter is listed for hearing before the High Court on 7 August 2025.