High Court’s landmark decision in Bird v DP [2024] HCA 41

Bird v DP (a pseudonym) [2024] HCA 41

A recent High Court decision has seen a decisive overturn of a Victorian Supreme Court decision. The High Court has overturned the ruling that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Ballarat has vicarious liability. The Diocese was ruled in the Victorian to be liable for the actions of assistant parish priest Father Bryan Coffey (now deceased) against DP. However, a new precedent has been established for vicarious liability in relation to employment and the Catholic Church.

Background of Bird v DP

DP initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria, seeking damages for the psychological injuries incurred from Coffey’s assault and sexual abuse in 1971. DP contended that the Diocese was liable for Coffey’s actions. However, the Supreme Court incorrectly determined that the Diocese could be vicariously liable, despite Coffey not being an employee, based on the argument that their relationship was ‘akin to employment. Consequently, this incorrect determination lead to a need for consideration by the High Court.

The High Court rejected this interpretation, affirming that a genuine employment relationship is a critical requirement for establishing vicarious liability in Australia. It made it clear that relevant acts or omissions must occur within the scope of that employment. Australian law mandates that employers are vicariously liable for their employees’ actions. However, this liability does not extend to individuals in relationships that are simply ‘akin to employment.’ The High Court firmly declined to expand the boundaries of vicarious liability to include these types of relationships.

The Court acknowledged that certain features of the relationship between the Diocese and Coffey resemble an employment relationship. However, the Court asserted that broadening vicarious liability in this manner would create unnecessary ambiguity and unpredictability. This reformation does not align with the well-established rules and principles of vicarious liability in Australia. It is essential to recognise that the definition of an ‘employment’ relationship is governed by statute. This places the responsibility for any potential expansion of vicarious liability squarely in the hands of the legislatures. If there was appetite for religious institutions in cases like this to be treated as employers, this would be subject to policy change.  

Broader Implications of Bird v DP

This ruling holds substantial importance for institutions that function outside traditional employment frameworks The High Court’s decision underscores the importance of assessing liability through the lens of negligence, emphasizing the principles of foreseeability of harm and the presence of a non-delegable duty of care. Given the rising number of historical abuse claims, organisations should carefully note the principals of this decision. You can read more about the above decision in our case note here: Bird v DP (a pseudonym) 2024 HCA 41.

For support in ensuring you meet the latest requirements under law, please contact us.

Phone: (02) 9181 5001

Email: .   

Our Services: https://integroe.com.au/legal-services/