Lawyers call for urgent reform after High Court ruling blocks claims from 1000s of abuse survivors

Lawyers warn thousands of historic abuse claims against churches and other groups are at a “dead end” following a landmark High Court ruling.

A shock High Court ruling has limited the rights of survivors to sue perpetrators of child sexual abuse. Picture: iStock

EXCLUSIVE

Thousands of historic child abuse claims against churches, schools, volunteer groups and sporting bodies are at a “dead end” following a landmark High Court ruling limiting legal liability, lawyers warn.

Federal and state attorneys-general are considering legal changes to protect victims after the shock Bird v DP ruling last November limited the rights of victims to sue perpetrators such as priests, Scout masters, volunteers, sporting coaches and other non-employees.

The ruling holds that institutions cannot be held liable for sexual abuse if the offending priest or member of the religious order is not in an employment relationship

The case involved Paul Bird, the current bishop of the Diocese of Ballarat in Victoria who successfully argued priests are not employees of the church.

Thousands of historic child abuse claims against churches, schools and volunteer groups are at a ‘dead end’ folling a High Court ruling. Picture: Supplied

DP is the pseudonym of a man abused in 1971 at the age of five by Father Bryan Coffey, an assistant parish priest in Port Fairy.

It’s estimated that a third of current survivor claims are impacted by the decision, with one lawyer, Judy Courtin, estimating there are “about 2000 survivors in Victoria alone whose chances of a civil claim are currently nought”.

A change.org petition by Dr Courtin has already attracted more than 20,000 signatures. Ms Courtin said the consequences of this decision were “dire”.

“If a survivor cannot prove the institution had prior knowledge of the offender – an

arduous and at times impossible challenge – they face a legal dead end,” she said.

One of Dr Courtin’s clients, Mick, said the ruling was a “road block in the way” of his claim against the Christian Brothers. “They should be responsible for the actions of people under their banner,” he said.

Lawyer Laird McDonald from Rightside Legal said the decision “means that religious orders have the ability to escape responsibility from their abusive priests and brothers” even where there is no dispute the abuse occurred and the survivor has been damaged as a result.

He said scouting organisations and some sporting clubs may also take advantage of the decision.

Pedophile priest Father Bryan Desmond Coffey outside court in 1999.

Maurice Blackburn principal lawyer John Rule said the ruling was a “black letter decision” affecting potentially thousands of claimants in a variety of organisations.

“The state government must urgently turn its attention to giving survivors a fighting chance,” he said.

Amy Olver, special legal counsel for Shine Lawyers in Victoria, said it was a “very significant decision which creates a legal loophole for the church to exploit and a further hurdle in front of survivors”.

Kim Price, who specialises in sexual abuse compensation claims at Arnold Thomas & Becker, said the ruling “has had significant implications for survivors of childhood abuse”.

“The situation is now urgent as countless survivors are being forced to choose between either running legally compromised trials or accepting reduced offers of settlement,” he said.

A spokesman for the federal attorney-general Mark Dreyfuss said the federal government is “considering how best to work with jurisdictions to ensure victims and survivors can hold perpetrators and organisations accountable through civil litigation”.

A spokesman for Victorian attorney-general Sonya Kilkenny said she has discussed the issue with her state and federal colleagues “and will continue to seek advice on any future action”.

A statement from the Christian Brothers Oceania Province said the decision “confirmed decades of Australian law which confines a finding of vicarious liability to circumstances in which an employment relationship exists”.