A landmark private member’s bill tabled in Queensland Parliament on 22 April 2026 seeks to reform Queensland law to overcome the consequences of a recent High Court decision regarding institutional liability for historical child abuse.

The High Court decision

In November 2024, the High Court of Australia handed down its decision in Bird v DP[1] (Bird decision) finding that the Catholic Diocese of Ballarat was not vicariously liable for the historical sexual abuse committed by a priest.

The case involved a man who was sexually abused as a child by a Catholic priest in 1971. He sued the Dioceses of Ballarat, arguing that the Church should be held vicariously liable for the acts of the priest. The trial court and the Victorian Court of Appeal agreed with him. On appeal, the High Court overturned these decisions finding that the priest was not technically an “employee” of the Diocese, and therefore the Church could not be held vicariously liable as there was no valid legal basis on which to ascribe liability to the Church in the absence of a true employee relationship.

The High Court majority acknowledged its own conclusion was “harsh” and Justice Gleeson dissented. But a majority of five justices confirmed that the law is currently that vicarious liability in Australia is confined to employment relationships and does not extend to relationships merely “akin to” employment.

The finding immediately changed the complexion of current claims being pursued for historical abuse.

Queensland’s Response: The New Bill

Queensland’s Labour opposition, led by Shadow Attorney-General Meaghan Scanlon MP, introduced the Civil Liability (Holding Institutions Accountable for Child Abuse) Amendment Bill 2026 on 22 April 2026-Queensland’s direct answer to the Bird

The Bill is currently before the Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee. It amends the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) and is a Private Member’s Bill designed to restore the rights of the victim-survivors to seek redress through the courts.

The Key Change: New Chapter 2, Part 2A, Division 3A

The centrepiece of the Bill is the insertion of a new Division 3A into Chapter 2, Part 2A of the Civil Liability Act 2003 titled “Liability of institutions for abuse by persons in relationship akin to employment.”

The law is proposed to allow institutions to potentially be held vicariously liable for claims for the abuse of children under their care, supervision, control or authority if the abuse is perpetrated by persons not employed by the institutions but in relationships akin to employment by the institutions.

Here is what the new Division does:

  • Expands who counts as “associated with” an institution-a priest, a volunteer, a contractor, a sports coach-anyone in a relationship with the institution that is akin to being employed by it is now covered.
  • Makes the declaration prospective and retrospective-the law declares that institutions have never been prevented from being liable where the abuser was in an employment -like relationship. This is not just a future rule; it reaches back in time.
  • Removes limitation periods-consistent with Queensland’s existing framework, actions for child abuse that can be brought at any time, with no limitation applying.
  • Allows previously settled claims to be reopened-if a survivor settled the claim after 12 November 2024 (the day before the Bird decision), a court may, on application, set aside that settlement if it is just and reasonable to do so. Claims settled before 13 November 2024 are excluded.

Purpose of the Bill

Queensland already has a strong legislative framework for institutional child abuse liability introduced in 2019. That framework imposes a duty on institutions to take reasonable steps to prevent abuse and reverses the burden of proof-the institution must prove it took all reasonable steps, not the victim.

But that framework was built on the assumption that vicarious liability could extend to beyond employees. The finding of the High Court in Bird regarding the extent of vicarious liability in Australian common law demonstrated this assumption was wrongly held.

The explanatory material for the 2026 Bill is frank. Its intent is to restore a right for victims to seek redress that was effectively removed by the High Court in the Bird

Other Australian jurisdictions have already acted. Victoria passed its equivalent legislation in February 2026, and the ACT did so in October 2025. Queensland is now seeking to join them.

Another High Court decision

It is important to distinguish the Bird decision with a later High Court decision from earlier this year in 2026, being the AA v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle matter[2].

In that decision, the High Court found that the respondent institution had a non-delegable duty of care towards AA which it breached.

The Joint Judgement found that the respondent owed a duty to a child to ensure that while the child was under the care, supervision or control of a priest of the Diocese, as a result of the priest purportedly performing a function of a priest of the Diocese, reasonable care was taken to prevent reasonably foreseeable personal injury to the child irrespective of the technical legal relationship between the priest and the institution (that is, whether he was an employee or not).

Concluding remarks

It is clear that the law in this area remains in flux: whether due to legislative reform or through the High Court of Australia having to decide tough cases.

The finding of a non-delegable duty of care being owed to children and other vulnerable individuals has weighty and broad risk consequences for institutions and other care providers, including State and territory governments.

It will be interesting to see how various State parliaments respond.

[1]  [2024] HCA 41.

[2] [2026] HCA 2.