Bird v DP (a pseudonym)

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by a Diocese concerning its vicarious liability for sexual abuse committed by a priest. The dispute arose from a claim by the respondent, DP, who alleged sexual abuse by a priest while carrying out pastoral duties. The central question was whether the Diocese could be held vicariously liable for the priest's actions, even though the priest was not an employee or agent of the Diocese.

The legal issues before the Court were whether vicarious liability in Australia extends beyond relationships of employment to include relationships "akin to employment," and if so, whether such a relationship existed in this case. The Court also considered whether a non-delegable duty could be relied upon, noting that this issue had not been raised or tested at trial and that the respondent would face prejudice if permitted to rely on it.

The High Court reasoned that Australian law, unlike in some other jurisdictions such as Canada, England, and Ireland, does not currently recognise vicarious liability for individuals who are not employees or in a relationship "akin to employment." The Court found that there was no established legal basis for extending vicarious liability to the relationship between the Diocese and the priest in this instance, as there was no finding of an employment relationship. The Court noted that while legislative changes in Victoria had addressed limitation periods for child abuse claims, this did not alter the common law principles of vicarious liability.

The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria were set aside. The High Court ordered that the proceeding be dismissed with costs. The appellant was also ordered to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application for special leave to appeal and the appeal to the High Court.