AA v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-NewcastleCitation:[2026] HCA 2Before:Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJDate:11 Feb 2026Case Number:S94/2025Read more

AA v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-NewcastleCitation:[2026] HCA 2Before:Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJDate:11 Feb 2026Case Number:S94/2025Read more

The Court held that the respondent owed the appellant a non-delegable duty of care, which extended to intentional criminal acts by a priest in a position of authority over the appellant, and that the breach of this duty caused the harm suffered. The Court considered whether Lepore should be overruled and found that...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: AA; Respondent: The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Tort Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Non Delegable Duty, Historic Child Sexual Abuse, Liability for Intentional Acts, Damages Limitations
Tort Law Negligence Duty of Care Non Delegable Duty Historic Child Sexual Abuse Liability for Intentional Acts Damages Limitations

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AA

Appellant

The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the respondent owed the appellant a duty of care
  2. 2 Whether the respondent owed a non-delegable duty of care
  3. 3 Whether a non-delegable duty of care is owed in respect of harm caused by intentional conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the respondent owed the appellant a non-delegable duty of care, which extended to intentional criminal acts by a priest in a position of authority over the appellant, and that the breach of this duty caused the harm suffered. The Court considered whether Lepore should be overruled and found that the circumstances justified recognition of a non-delegable duty in this context.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment for the appellant against the respondent
  • Damages to be assessed in accordance with the judgment