High Court Rules Diocese Liable in AA v Maitland-Newcastle
This morning (February 11th 2026), the High Court delivered a watershed judgment in AA v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle [2026] HCA 2, allowing AA’s appeal and finding the Diocese liable for the sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of Fr Ronald Pickin in 1969.
Koffels Solicitors & Barristers are proud to have represented the appellant, AA.
The decision
By a majority, the High Court allowed the appeal.
The joint judgment of Gageler CJ, Jagot J and Beech-Jones J, with which Gordon J and Edelman J agreed on the key legal issues, found that the Diocese owed AA a non-delegable duty of care in 1969. That duty was a duty to ensure that, while AA was under the care, supervision or control of a priest of the Diocese performing a function of the Diocese, reasonable care was taken to prevent reasonably foreseeable personal injury to AA.
Critically, the majority held that the non-delegable duty was breached by Fr Pickin’s intentional acts of sexual assault — overturning the longstanding position in New South Wales v Lepore (2003) 212 CLR 511 that a non-delegable duty could not be breached by intentional criminal conduct.
The High Court held, by majority, that the Diocese was liable to AA for breach of a non-delegable duty of care it owed to AA in 1969. The majority held that:
- a non-delegable common law duty of care requires that the duty-holder has undertaken the care, supervision or control of the person or property of another, or is so placed in relation to that person or their property as to assume a particular responsibility for their or its safety;
- a non-delegable duty may be breached by the intentional conduct of the duty-holder or their delegate, and to the extent the majority in Lepore held that there could be no common law non-delegable duty in respect of harm caused by an intentional criminal act, the decision should be reopened and overturned;
- on the facts as found by the primary judge, the Diocese in 1969 owed AA a non-delegable duty;
- Fr Pickin’s sexual assaults of AA meant that the Diocese breached that duty, causing AA the harm as found by the primary judge; and
- the limitations on personal injury damages imposed by the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) applied to the determination of the extent of the liability of the Diocese.
What this means for survivors
Today’s decision is significant for survivors of institutional abuse across Australia, particularly those whose claims have been affected by the High Court’s 2024 decision in Bird v DP, which restricted the application of vicarious liability for abuse by clergy and volunteers.
Following Bird v DP, many survivors faced significant difficulties establishing that a diocese or other institutions were legally responsible for abuse committed by clergy and/or volunteers, as they were not employees.
Today’s decision provides an alternative pathway — a non-delegable duty — which does not depend on the employment relationship.
The decision also confirms that non-delegable duties can be breached by intentional criminal acts, resolving a significant area of uncertainty that had limited the ability of survivors to hold institutions accountable.
Survivors who have previously been advised that their claim may face difficulties following Bird v DP should seek updated legal advice in light of today’s judgment.
Damages and the Civil Liability Act
While the appeal succeeded on the non-delegable duty ground, the High Court reduced the damages pursuant to the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).
The role of Koffels Solicitors and Barristers
Koffels Solicitors & Barristers represented AA throughout these proceedings. Our principal, Ross Koffel, led AA’s case before the High Court.
On reception of the result this morning, Ross Koffel said:
“We are pleased for our client, first and foremost. It has taken considerable courage to pursue this case, and today’s decision recognises that institutions cannot simply step away from responsibility for what occurred within their structures.
“This case has always been about accountability — not just for one institution, but about how the law responds when children are harmed in environments that were meant to be safe.
“Koffels Solicitors & Barristers acted for the appellant in advancing arguments about institutional responsibility and duty of care. The High Court’s decision provides important clarity in an area of law that affects many survivors who have waited decades to have their experiences properly recognised.
“We hope this decision assists survivors across Australia by reinforcing that institutions must answer for the risks they created and the harm that followed.”
Ross Koffel of Koffels Solicitors & Barristers is available for further comment.
Related content
- AA v Maitland-Newcastle: Legal Background and Procedural History
- St Patrick’s Catholic Church, Wallsend
- Catholic Schools and Institutions in NSW
- Catholic Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle — Institutional Overview
- Institutional Abuse Compensation
- National Redress Scheme
If you are a survivor of institutional abuse and wish to understand how today’s decision may affect your circumstances, please contact us for a confidential discussion on 02 9283 5599.
If you are in immediate crisis, please contact Lifeline on 13 11 14 or the Blue Knot Foundation National Helpline on 1300 657 380.
