*Disclaimer: This article contains details about sexual assault/abuse which may be upsetting for some readers. Reader discretion is advised. 

In response to the High Court decision in Bird v DP (a pseudonym) [2024] HCA 41, the Queensland Government has introduced the Civil Liability (Holding Institutions Accountable for Child Abuse) Amendment Bill 2026, which seeks to allow institutions to be held vicariously liable for child abuse perpetrated by persons in relationships ‘akin to employment’.

Several other Australian jurisdictions have already introduced similar legislative amendments to address the implications of Bird v DP. Amendments similar to the proposed Queensland legislation have been enacted in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and Victoria to their respective Civil Liability legislation, with the former adopting the broadest approach.

In the landmark decision of Bird v DP, the High Court held that Australian common law should not permit relationships akin to employment to give rise to vicarious liability claims for child sexual abuse.

At [63], the majority, comprised of Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward and Beech-Jones JJ, considered that ‘the law of vicarious liability is squarely in the hands of the legislatures’. The majority reasoned at [65] that, in the absence of ‘clear or stable’ principles, the extension of vicarious liability beyond the employment relationship to those ‘akin to employment’ would produce uncertainty and indeterminacy. The Court found at [70] that vicarious liability had been considered by legislatures, but solely expressly addressed by prospective laws, rather than retrospectively.

The ruling underscored the strict limits of vicarious liability where no employment-like relationship exists, which prompted consideration of potential legislative amendments across Australia, particularly in Queensland, the ACT, Victoria and New South Wales.

On 22 April 2026, the Civil Liability (Holding Institutions Accountable for Child Abuse) Amendment Bill 2026 (Qld) was introduced into the Queensland Parliament, which seeks to amend the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) to allow institutions to be held vicariously liable for child abuse perpetrated by persons in relationships ‘akin to employment’.

The newly proposed section 33IB states that ‘a person is taken to be, or to have been, associated with an institution under this part if the person is, or was, in a relationship with the institution akin to being employed by the institution’.

Currently, section 33C(1)(a) of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) defines that an individual associated with an institution includes ‘an officer, office holder, representative, leader, owner, member, employee, agent, volunteer or contractor of the institution’. It is unclear whether the proposed legislation will make insertions or omissions with respect to this definition.

ACT

On 30 October 2025, the ACT Legislative Assembly passed the Civil Law (Wrongs) Organisational Child Abuse Liability) Amendment Bill 2025, becoming the first jurisdiction to pass legislation addressing the Bird v DP decision.

This extended an organisation’s vicarious liability for child abuse perpetrated by an individual who is ‘akin to an employee’ or ‘associated with the organisation’. The new section 114BC(3)(a) defines that an individual who falls within the scope of an association includes ‘an office holder, officer, owner, volunteer or contractor of the organisation’.

Victoria

On 18 February 2026, the Victoria Government introduced the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Bill 2025. This extended vicarious liability to include relationships which are ‘akin to employment’ and altered the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) to permit plaintiffs to apply to the court to have their settlement or civil judgment, which occurred between 13 November 2024 and the commencement date of the Bill, set aside.

The new section 93C(1)-(2) states that, in examining whether an individual is ‘akin to an employee’, a court may consider (but is not limited in what a court may have regard to):

• whether the individual conducts activities as an integral part of the activities carried on by the institution

• does so for the benefit of the institution; and

• the extent of the institution’s control over the individual in carrying out the individual’s activities.

In contrast to the ACT, the new section 93C(3) specifies that an individual contractor is not an individual akin to an employee.

NSW

On 19 March 2025, the New South Wales Government introduced the Civil Liability Amendment (Organisational Child Abuse Liability) Bill 2025 (NSW), which sought to extend the duty of care and vicarious liability of organisations and allow courts to set aside settlements or civil judgments made before the commencement of the proposed Act.

On 26 March 2025, the Bill was dismissed at its second reading. Currently, no further Bills have been introduced proposing alternative legislative amendments.

The proposed Civil Liability (Holding Institutions Accountable for Child Abuse) Amendment Bill 2026 (Qld) allows institutions to be held vicariously liable for child abuse perpetrated by persons in relationships ‘akin to employment’. This will have ramifications for institutions who may be at risk of being held vicariously liable for abuse perpetrated by non-employees.

However, it should be noted that these amendments focus on the first element of vicarious liability, in establishing whether the requisite relationship between the defendant institution and the perpetrator of abuse exists.

The Civil Liability (Holding Institutions Accountable for Child Abuse) Amendment Bill 2026 (Qld) does not alter the second element of establishing vicarious liability, which concerns the question of whether the perpetrator was acting within the scope of liability, being either employment or, if the Act is enacted, the association.

Legislative amendments extending vicarious liability to relationships akin to employment do not mean institutions in such cases will always be liable for the acts of a perpetrator ‘akin’ to an employee. The analysis of ‘authority, power, trust, control and the ability to achieve intimacy’ inherent in the second element of a vicarious liability action remains significant in the court’s consideration.

For further information or advice on the implications of these legislative developments, please contact a member of the Institutional Risk & Liability team.