A Bill before the Queensland Parliament signals a major shift aimed at expanding the circumstances in which Queensland institutions may be held vicariously liable for child abuse perpetrated by individuals in relationships ‘akin to employment’.

The Civil Liability (Holding Institutions Accountable for Child Abuse) Amendment Bill 2026 (the Bill) was introduced into the Queensland Parliament in April 2026.

The proposed reforms follow the High Court’s decision in Bird v DP (A Pseudonym) [2024] HCA 41 (Bird), discussed in our November 2024 insight, ‘High Court rules on vicarious liability and permanent stays in historical abuse matters’.

The background

This legislative push reflects a broader trend across Australian states and territories, as highlighted in our February 2026 insight, ‘The expansion of vicarious liability in Victoria’, which examined Victoria’s equivalent legislation, the Justice Legislation Amendment (Vicarious Liability for Child Abuse) Act 2026.

Legislative reform has swept across Australia following the High Court’s decision in Bird, which confirmed that vicarious liability did not extend beyond relationships of employment.

The Bill aims to extend the potential application of vicarious liability to individuals in relationships with institutions that are ‘akin to employment’, which may include clergy, volunteers and foster carers.

In line with other jurisdictions, the Bill seeks to apply the principles of vicarious liability retrospectively.

The proposed extended vicarious liability provisions would apply to causes of action accruing both before and after commencement, but would not apply to a cause of action settled before 13 November 2024.

The broader trend

The following table shows how Queensland’s proposed reforms align with approaches taken in other jurisdictions.

A closer look at Queensland

The Bill proposes to amend the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) through the insertion of a new Chapter 2, Part 2A, Division 3A. Notably, the proposed changes apply to institutional child abuse claims under part 2A of that Act, rather than to vicarious liability generally.

The Bill also seeks to extend the class of persons treated as being associated with an institution to include individuals who are or were in a relationship with the institution that is or was ‘akin to employment’.

Unlike legislation in other jurisdictions, the Bill in its present form does not specifically define or provide guidance on what constitutes a relationship ‘akin to employment’. As the Bill progresses through Parliament, it remains to be seen whether Queensland will draw on the approaches adopted elsewhere to provide further guidance.

Although the Bill does not prescribe a test, the approaches adopted in other jurisdictions indicate three key factors relevant to determining whether a relationship is ‘akin to employment’. These are whether:

1. the person carries or carried out activities as an integral part of the activities carried on by the institution
2. those activities are or were for the benefit of the institution, and
3. the person is or was subject to the control of the institution.

While the Bill seeks to expand the scope of vicarious liability to include a broader range of individuals, it does not alter the core principles established in the High Court’s decision in Prince Alfred College Incorporated v ADC [2016] HCA 37.

The ‘second limb’ of the vicarious liability test remains intact, requiring an assessment of whether the institution placed the individual in a position where they had:

1. authority, power or control over the child
2. the trust of the child, or
3. the ability to achieve intimacy with the child.

As always, these factors will need to be examined on a case-by-case basis.

The Bill also confirms that section 11A of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) will apply to abuse claims covered by the proposed provisions, allowing relevant actions for damages arising from childhood abuse to be brought at any time without a limitation period.

Power to set aside settlement agreements

The Bill proposes to allow certain rights of action settled after 12 November 2024 but before the Bill’s commencement to be revived where a court sets aside the agreement effecting the settlement.

A court may set aside the agreement if it considers that:

1. a cause of action would have accrued when the agreement was entered into if the extended vicarious liability provisions had been in force, and
2. it is just and reasonable to set aside the agreement.

If the agreement is set aside, it will be void. However, the Bill provides that a party may not recover money already paid by or for that party under the agreement. This proposal stems from the 13 November 2024 decision in Bird, which restricted the principles of vicarious liability to relationships of employment.

Implications for you

The Queensland Parliament’s Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee is due to deliver its final report on 22 October 2026.

The Committee’s report will be a significant development. BN will continue to monitor the Bill’s progress closely.

It remains to be seen whether Queensland will align with the approaches taken by the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria and Western Australia, or follow New South Wales in preserving the existing position.

If enacted, the Bill could have far-reaching implications for institutions. The extent to which the reforms will affect historical abuse claims (including settled claims) and the changes institutions may need to make to their liability and compliance frameworks for working with children remain to be seen.

Civil Liability (Holding Institutions Accountable for Child Abuse) Amendment Bill 2026

Bird v DP (a pseudonym) [2024] HCA 41

Prince Alfred College Incorporated v ADC [2016] HCA 37