In a pivotal decision handed down in BIRD v DP (A PSEUDONYM) [2024] HCA 41, the High Court of Australia addressed a crucial question in tort law: whether an institution, such as a religious body, could be vicariously liable for the intentional torts (in this case, sexual abuse) committed by an individual who is not an employee but acts in a pastoral or representative capacity. The Court ultimately concluded that the Diocese was not vicariously liable for the sexual abuse committed by the priest, as there was no formal employment relationship or agency between the priest and the Diocese.
This decision provides significant clarity on the boundaries of vicarious liability in cases of institutional abuse, particularly in relation to clergy members and others who carry out duties on behalf of an organisation.
Factual Background
The case arose from allegations by a complainant, referred to as DP, who claimed he had been sexually abused by a priest in the Diocese. The abuse occurred while the priest was performing pastoral duties, which he was authorised to carry out by the Diocese. DP sought to hold the Diocese vicariously liable for the priest’s conduct, arguing that the priest was acting within the scope of his duties as a representative of the Diocese, and that the Diocese should bear responsibility for his actions.
The Diocese contested this claim, asserting that the priest was not an employee or agent of the Diocese, but rather an independent religious figure whose conduct was not authorised by the institution. The Diocese argued that the priest's actions were personal and outside the scope of his role in the Church, and therefore, it should not be held liable for the sexual abuse.
The central legal question before the Court was whether the Diocese could be vicariously liable for the intentional torts of the priest, despite the lack of a formal employer-employee relationship. The case required the High Court to determine whether vicarious liability should extend beyond traditional employment relationships to encompass other forms of relationships, such as those that might be considered "akin to employment," as had been suggested in previous cases.
On appeal
This appeal raised three issues:
whether, under the common law of Australia, absent a relationship of employment between a wrongdoer and a defendant, vicarious liability applies – or should be extended – to a relationship which is not one of employment, a relationship sometimes described as akin to employment;[1]
if the relationship between Coffey and the Diocese was one which gave rise to a relationship of vicarious liability, whether the Diocese was liable for Coffey's conduct; and
whether this Court should consider DP's notice of contention that the Diocese is liable for breach of a non-delegable duty owed to DP.
This was the first time the High Court had been asked to consider whether, absent a relationship of employment between a wrongdoer and a defendant, a diocese or a bishop may be held vicariously liable for the unlawful actions of a priest who sexually abuses a child. That, in turn, raises the question whether a relationship of employment is a necessary precursor – or a threshold requirement – to a finding of vicarious liability.
The Court held at [5] that the position in Australia is that an employer may be vicariously liable for the acts of its employees, but there is no such liability for the acts of those who are not in an employment relationship but, instead, are, for example, independent contractors or in a relationship "akin to employment". There being no finding of a relationship of employment between the Diocese and Coffey, the Court held that the appeal must be allowed.
The Majority Judgment
The majority's reasoning rested on the following key points:
No Employment or Agency Relationship: The Court found that the priest was not an employee of the Diocese, nor was he acting as an agent of the Diocese at the time of the sexual abuse. Although the priest performed pastoral duties under the authority of the Diocese, this was not sufficient to establish the formal legal relationship required for vicarious liability. The Court emphasized that the priest's role as a religious figure was not equivalent to being an employee of the Diocese in the traditional sense.
Scope of Vicarious Liability: The High Court reaffirmed the principle that vicarious liability generally arises in cases where there is a clear employment relationship between the wrongdoer and the institution. The Court rejected the argument that vicarious liability should extend to relationships that are "akin to employment," such as those involving volunteers or independent contractors, even if the individual was performing duties on behalf of the institution.
No Authorisation of the Torts: The Court also found that the priest’s actions were not authorised by the Diocese, either expressly or impliedly. While the priest was carrying out pastoral duties, his sexual abuse was not within the scope of the activities he was authorised to perform. The Court stressed that vicarious liability applies when the wrongful act occurs within the course of the individual's employment or authorised activity, but the priest’s conduct was an abuse of his position and not part of his assigned duties.
Limits of Institutional Liability: The decision reinforced the notion that an institution cannot be held liable for the actions of individuals simply because they are affiliated with the institution or performing duties that are tangentially related to their role. In this case, the Court held that while the priest’s role was linked to the Diocese, there was no direct legal relationship—such as employment—that would justify vicarious liability for his criminal acts.
The Dissenting Opinion
There was a dissenting opinion in the case, which argued that the Diocese should be vicariously liable for the priest's actions despite the absence of a formal employment relationship. The dissenting judges argued that the priest's role within the Diocese, and the authority that the priest derived from his pastoral position, created a sufficiently close connection between the Diocese and the wrongful acts for vicarious liability to apply.
The dissenting view emphasized that the priest was acting in a capacity that was closely tied to the Diocese’s religious functions and that the sexual abuse was committed while the priest was engaged in pastoral duties, which gave rise to a stronger argument for institutional responsibility. However, this view did not prevail in the majority judgment.
Legal Significance of the Decision
The decision in BIRD v DP has important implications for the scope of vicarious liability. The ruling clarifies that for an institution to be vicariously liable for the actions of an individual, there must be a formal legal relationship, typically in the form of an employer-employee or principal-agent relationship.
The key takeaways from the judgment are:
Reaffirming the Importance of Employment Relationships: The High Court’s decision reinforces the longstanding principle that vicarious liability generally applies only where there is a formal employment or agency relationship between the institution and the wrongdoer. This creates a clear line between employment and other types of associations, which may include volunteers, independent contractors, or non-employees. The Court rejected the notion that vicarious liability should extend to relationships that are "akin to employment," marking a significant narrowing of the scope of institutional liability.
Institutional Accountability in Abuse Cases: The ruling limits the circumstances in which institutions can be held liable for the actions of individuals who are not their employees. Religious organisations, charities, and other institutions that rely on non-employees (such as volunteers or independent contractors) may now find it more difficult to be held vicariously liable for acts of abuse committed by these individuals. The decision highlights the importance of proving a clear legal relationship, such as employment, in order to successfully claim vicarious liability.
Impact on Institutional Abuse Claims: The judgment is expected to affect ongoing and future institutional abuse claims, particularly those where the alleged perpetrator was not directly employed by the institution but was instead a volunteer or an independent contractor. The ruling makes it clear that plaintiffs will need to focus on proving a formal employment or agency relationship in order to succeed in claims involving vicarious liability.
Institutional Safeguards: Despite the decision's limitation on vicarious liability, institutions remain under an obligation to implement strong safeguards and oversight to prevent abuse. While the Diocese was not found liable in this case, it does not absolve organisations from their responsibility to protect vulnerable individuals. The decision underscores the importance of institutional responsibility in preventing harm and responding to allegations of abuse.
Conclusion
BIRD v DP (A PSEUDONYM) [2024] HCA 41 represents a crucial development in Australian tort law, particularly in the context of institutional abuse claims. The High Court’s ruling makes clear that vicarious liability can only arise from formal employment or agency relationships, and not from associations "akin to employment."
While this decision may limit the scope of liability for institutions, it highlights the importance of legal relationships and the responsibility of organisations to ensure their safeguards against abuse are robust.
This judgment provides clarity on the boundaries of vicarious liability and will undoubtedly shape the way future claims involving sexual abuse by clergy members and other non-employees are litigated in Australian courts.
This article should not be taken as legal advice. If you have a matter that deals with the subject matter of this article then you should seek independent legal advice regarding the particular circumstances of your case.
Liability limited by a Scheme approved under professional standards legislation.
[1] See, eg, Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society ("Christian Brothers") [2013] 2 AC 1 at 18 [47], citing E v English Province of Our Lady of Charity [2013] QB 722. See also Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] AC 660 at 673 [32]; Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council [2018] AC 355 at 378-380 [59]-[64]; BXB v Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses [2024] AC 567 at 591592 [68]-[69].