THE Catholic Diocese of Ballarat has been found liable for the sexual abuse in 1971 of a boy by one of its priests, in a Victorian Supreme Court verdict on Wednesday.
The case - DP (Pseudonym) v Paul Bernard Bird - in the "institutional liability list", has been being described as an Australian first.
The Ballarat and Maitland-Newcastle dioceses were described as major centres of Catholic abuse by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
The commission recommended new laws to allow a "readily identifiable church" to be sued.
The Victorian version was referenced in Wednesday's decision, where Justice Forrest found the Ballarat Diocese "vicariously liable" for the assaults alleged by DP, and ordered general damages of $200,000, medical expenses of $10,000 and aggravated damages of $20,000.
"DP" had asked for more than $1.5 million.
Suzie Smith, author of the church expose The Altar Boys, said the verdict "ends the church's exception from the law of vicarious liability" and was "a sensible and overdue development".
Federal Labor member for Newcastle Sharon Claydon is deputy chair of a joint select committee on implementation of the National Redress Scheme set up after the royal commission.
Ms Claydon said the decision "may have implications for those seeking compensation against the church in civil claims" but said the "redress scheme was set up to avoid the need for civil actions against perpetrators or institutions".
The Maitland-Newcastle Diocese said it had never used "the Ellis Defence" (to deny liability) and believed the Victorian case would have "little if any effect on the diocese's approach to resolving claims justly and equitably". It was also a signatory to the national redress scheme.
Leonie Sheedy, co-founder of victims' advocacy group Care Leavers Australasia Network (CLAN), said it was good to see the court awarding payments.
But the redress scheme ceiling of $150,000 - minus any previous payout - meant it was "one level for battlers like our CLAN members and another for those with the money and education to go to the courts".
READ THE CASE VERDICT HERE
