Content warning: This article contains information in relation to sexual assault and child abuse. If you or someone you know require support, we encourage you to contact Lifeline on 13 11 14 or 1800 Respect.
A judgment recently handed down by the High Court of Australia has clarified the extent to which institutions will be vicariously liable for the historical sexual abuse and/or criminal conduct of its members.
In Bird v DP (a pseudonym) [2024] HCA 41, the High Court unanimously held that vicarious liability cannot be imposed without an employer/employee relationship. This means that institutions will not be vicariously liable for the historical and/or criminal conduct of its members where they are not strictly engaged as employees, including those engaged as independent contractors, volunteers or relationships ‘akin to employment’.
Background of the case
In this case, DP (a pseudonym) was assaulted and sexually abused on two separate occasions by Father Bryan Coffey (now deceased) (“Coffey”), a priest from DP’s local church. In 2020, DP commenced proceedings claiming damages for psychological injuries he had suffered as a result of Coffey’s abuse. DP alleged the Roman Catholic Diocese of Ballarat (“Diocese”) was vicariously liable for Coffey’s conduct.
At first instance, a single judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria found the Diocese was vicariously liable for Coffey’s conduct, even though that judge also found that Coffey was not an employee of the Diocese. The Diocese then appealed to the Supreme Court of Victoria Court of Appeal, which unanimously dismissed that appeal. The Diocese then applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal, which was granted.
At common law, generally, an employer can be vicariously liable for the wrongful acts or omissions of its employees in the course or scope of employment. This is based on the principle that employers knowingly accept the risks of hiring employees, including the possibility that employees might cause injury or damage to others while performing their job. However, employers are not always vicariously liable for the actions or inactions of its employees – there must be a sufficient connection between the wrongful act and the employment.
What was the issue?
The central issue before the High Court was whether the principle of vicarious liability could or should be extended to the relationship between Coffey and the Diocese, which was not an employment relationship. To put it another way, the High Court had to consider whether in the absence of an employment relationship, a Diocese or Bishop could be vicariously liable for the unlawful conduct of a priest.
Vicarious Liability
A majority of the High Court held that vicarious liability cannot be imposed without an employer/employee relationship. As there was no employment relationship between the Diocese and Coffey, the Diocese could not be liable for Coffey’s sexual abuse.
On the question of whether it should expand the boundaries of vicarious liability to include independent contractors or relationships ‘akin to employment’, the majority answered firmly in the negative. Although the High Court acknowledged the harshness of requiring an employment relationship for vicarious liability, it reasoned that expanding this requirement would create uncertainty and indeterminacy for the following reasons:
- The ‘akin to employment’ test has led to results overseas which have expanded liability to relationships which previously would not have been understood to involve one party being liable for another’s wrongs;1 and
- It would further complicate the already fraught distinction between employees and independent contractors.2
In light of these reasons, the High Court found that the requirement for an employment relationship in vicarious liability should remain and that any reformulation of the law in this area is a matter for parliament.
Agency
The majority also examined whether the Diocese was liable for Coffey’s acts on the basis of agency. However, as the unlawful acts committed by Coffey were not done with the Diocese’s or the then Bishop’s express, implied or apparent authorisation, the majority reasoned that Coffey could not be a ‘true agent’ of the Diocese.
“Non-Delegable Duty of Care”
Separately, DP also asked the High Court to rule on whether the Diocese owed a non-delegable duty of care to DP to protect him from the risk of sexual abuse by its priests, including Coffey. As the issue was not pleaded at first instance, or on appeal to the Victorian Supreme Court, the High Court declined to rule on this issue.
However, Jagot J (in obiter) observed that a personal or non-delegable duty of care may arise where the provision of care, supervision or control is required to be exercised by the defendant for the safety of the plaintiff in circumstances where the plaintiff would reasonably expect the exercise of due care for their safety. With the path to vicarious liability now requiring a strict employment relationship, it may be that claimants increasingly focus on negligence claims based on non-delegable duties of care, as these claims don’t always require an employment relationship to be established.
There also remains various statutory duties which impose liability for child abuse. For example, in Victoria, there is a duty on “relevant organisations” to take reasonable care to “prevent the abuse of a child by an individual associated with the relevant organisation while the child is under the care, supervision or authority of the relevant organisation.” An individual associated with a relevant organisation includes a minister of religion, a religious leader, an officer or a member of the personnel of the religious organisation.3
What does this mean for employers?
While common law and statutory duties of care remain, the High Court has made it clear that organisations will not be vicariously liable for the actions of their independent contractors or volunteers.
Although Bird v DP will the ability of victim survivors to obtain compensation for abuse perpetuated by people who were not employees through vicarious liability, individuals may still be liable for civil and criminal offences for failing to report child abuse.
It is unclear whether the decision will prompt calls for legislative change regarding the expansion of vicarious liability to include volunteers and independent contractors.4
How we can help?
Our Workplace Relations team can assist with managing risks associated with engaging and managing your workforce, including volunteers and other types of relationships. Our Safeguarding team can help organisations design and implement frameworks to prevent and respond to child abuse, and train your people on preventing and responding to child abuse and harm.
Contact us
Please contact us if you would like further information on how we can assist.
Subscribe to our email updates and receive our articles directly in your inbox.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should seek legal advice regarding the application of the law to your organisation.