Civil Law (Wrongs) Amendment Act 2026

For the child-safety duty, an “individual associated with an organisation” includes an office holder, officer, owner, employee, agent, volunteer or contractor. For a religious organisation, it also includes a religious leader, whether ordained or not, and other personnel. Regulations may prescribe additional associated individuals and circumstances in which a person is not associated (s 114BBC(1)-(2)). If an organisation delegates responsibility for a child, in whole or part, to another organisation, individuals associated with the delegate are also taken to be associated with the principal organisation (s 114BBC(3)).

The duty applies to an organisation “that is responsible for a child”, but the amendment does not itself reproduce the existing definition of “responsible”. Instead, it relocates the existing s 114BD provision to s 114BBA in the preliminary division, and updates references accordingly (ss 9, 13, 23). The supplied text therefore does not show the full criteria for when an organisation is responsible for a child.

For claim-farming provisions, a “claim” is defined broadly by the basis of the claim, not its label: it includes personal-injury damages claims based in tort, contract or another form of action, including breach of statutory duty, and specified National Redress Scheme claims (s 221A). A claimant is a person who “has or may have a claim”, so the provisions are not confined to people who have already lodged proceedings or a formal application.

A “service” means a service relating to a claim, and a claim referral includes referring a claimant for a service or disclosing the claimant’s personal information (s 221A; s 221C(5)). The detailed meanings of “law practice” and “associate” are cross-referred to the Legal Profession Act dictionary, which is not reproduced here.

The child-abuse duty directly concerns organisations responsible for children and the individuals associated with them. The listed categories reach beyond employees: owners, officers, agents, volunteers and contractors are included, as are religious leaders and other religious-organisation personnel (s 114BBC(1)). Delegation does not, by itself, remove the delegate organisation’s associated individuals from the statutory connection to the principal organisation (s 114BBC(3)). The duty is connected to the organisation’s responsibility for the child and to abuse perpetrated by an associated individual in that connection (s 114BBD(2)-(3)).

The claim-farming offences may affect people who contact claimants, arrange or receive referrals, pay referral benefits, or arrange for someone else to do so. The text says “a person”, rather than limiting the offences to lawyers or businesses (ss 221B-221C). It also affects claimants who have, or may have, claims within the defined categories. However, being contacted does not itself make a claimant an offender under these provisions.

Law practices and their associates have particular exposure. Some contacts by a law-practice associate are excepted, including certain contacts with a practice’s former client and contacts requested by a complying community legal centre or industrial organisation, subject to the statutory conditions (s 221B(2)(b)-(c)). A law practice also faces a separate costs consequence if it or an associate is convicted or found guilty of an offence under Part 15.4A (Legal Profession Act, new s 307A).

The provisions also refer to complying community legal centres, industrial organisations, representative proceedings and law-practice advertising. These references matter because the Act creates specific exclusions or exceptions for those circumstances (ss 221B(2), 221D). The supplied text does not identify how many organisations or people will be affected in practice.

The central organisational obligation is to “take reasonable precautions” to prevent an associated individual from perpetrating child abuse against a child, where the abuse is connected with the organisation’s responsibility for that child (s 114BBD(2)). This is framed as a duty of care forming part of a cause of action in negligence, not as a standalone criminal offence for failing to prevent abuse (s 114BBD(1)). The text does not specify a single checklist of precautions that every organisation must adopt.

If an associated individual perpetrates connected child abuse, the organisation is taken to have breached the duty unless it establishes that it took reasonable precautions (s 114BBD(3)). That provision concerns breach of this duty. It does not, on its face, decide every other element or issue that may arise in a negligence claim.

When assessing reasonable precautions, a court may consider the organisation’s nature and available resources; its relationship with the child; and the position in which it placed the individual. Relevant features of that position include authority, power or control over the child, and the ability to gain trust or achieve intimacy. The court may also consider compliance with applicable child-safety standards, prescribed matters and anything else it considers relevant (s 114BBD(4)).

For claimants and claim-related services, the Act creates limits rather than affirmative claimant rights. It criminalises specified paid solicitation or referral contact (s 221B) and giving, receiving or arranging benefits for claim referrals (s 221C). Exceptions include representative-proceeding contact, specified law-practice contacts, referrals by a law practice acting for a claimant, certain transfers of a law practice, and advertising or promotion of law practices (ss 221B(2), 221C(3)-(4), 221D). The advertising exception is limited to advertising, marketing or promotion to the public or a group, and related benefits.

Sections 221B and 221C each set a maximum penalty of 300 penalty units. Section 221B concerns contacting a claimant to solicit or induce a claim, or to refer the claimant to a third party for a service, where the contactor receives, agrees or expects to receive a fee or other benefit, or seeks or arranges a benefit for someone else (s 221B(1)). Section 221C separately criminalises giving, agreeing to give, receiving, agreeing to receive, or arranging a fee or other benefit for a claim referral (s 221C(1)-(2)). The supplied Act gives the penalty-unit maximum but not a dollar conversion.

Exceptions are structured as matters on which the defendant has an evidential burden. The notes to ss 221B and 221C refer to s 58 of the Criminal Code for that burden. The exceptions include specified contact connected with representative proceedings, qualifying law-practice contacts, referrals by a law practice acting for the claimant, prescribed circumstances, and certain transfers of a law practice where the claimant consents and the fee does not exceed the claimant’s current legal costs (ss 221B(2), 221C(3)-(4)). The text does not set out the full criminal procedure or explain how the evidential burden operates beyond those notes.

There are also professional and financial consequences. If a law practice or its associate is convicted or found guilty of an offence under Part 15.4A, the practice is not entitled to recover legal costs relating to the claim and must repay costs already received from the person who paid them (Legal Profession Act, new s 307A(1)-(3)). The note says the repayment may be recovered as a debt in a court of competent jurisdiction or the ACAT. Contravention of Part 15.4A by an Australian legal practitioner is also listed as conduct under the Legal Profession Act’s disciplinary provision, s 389(h), as amended.

The amendment is made to the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 and consequentially amends the Legal Profession Act 2006 (ss 3, 14; sch 1). The new child-abuse division expressly describes its duty as part of a negligence cause of action (s 114BBD(1)). It therefore operates within a civil-liability setting, while the claim-farming provisions create criminal offences and the consequential professional provisions address legal costs and practitioner conduct.

Several definitions rely on other enactments. “Complying community legal centre” refers to s 208 of the Legal Profession Act 2006, and “legal services” and “legal costs” are also cross-referenced to that Act (s 221B(3); s 221C(5)). “Law practice” and “associate” are defined by reference to the Legal Profession Act dictionary (s 221A; dictionary amendments). The full content of those definitions is not included in the supplied amendment text, so their precise boundaries cannot be established from this source alone.

The Act expressly includes claims for redress under the National Redress Scheme established by the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018 (Cwlth), but expressly excludes motor accident claims within the meaning of the ACT Motor Accident Injuries Act 2019 (s 221A). These are scope choices in the definition of “claim”; the amendment does not explain their policy rationale.

The definition of “industrial organisation” refers to registration under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cwlth) or a State law providing for registration, and a note says “State” includes the Northern Territory (s 221B(3)). The Act also refers to the Criminal Code’s evidential-burden provision and the Legislation Act’s rules about commencement and recovery of amounts.

The source is the Civil Law (Wrongs) Amendment Act 2026, Act A2026-7. Its endnotes state that the presentation speech was made in the Legislative Assembly on 17 March 2026, that the Act was notified on 15 May 2026, and that the Legislative Assembly passed the Bill on 6 May 2026. The source certifies it as a true copy of the Bill passed by the Assembly. It does not provide the presentation speech itself, debate transcripts, committee material or an explanatory statement, so those materials cannot be used here to test the stated rationale or legislative choices.

Section 2 says the Act commences the day after its notification day. A note adds that the naming and commencement provisions commence automatically on notification day under s 75(1) of the Legislation Act. The provisions refer to commencement of s 3 when defining the “commencement day” for the claim-farming transition (s 264(3)). The amendment text therefore distinguishes the Act’s general commencement rule from the specific automatic commencement of its naming and commencement provisions.

The new child-abuse duty applies to abuse that happens, or is alleged to happen, on or after the day the new division commences (s 114BBB; s 114BA note). Part 15.4A applies to anything done or omitted on or after the commencement day (s 264(1)). There is a specific transition for fees or benefits under written claim-referral agreements entered before commencement, where the referral was finalised before commencement (s 264(2)-(3)).

Chapter 22, which contains that transition, expires 12 months after it commences, but the source notes that an expired transitional provision continues to have effect after repeal under s 88 of the Legislation Act (s 265). The Act does not provide a broader amendment history of the underlying 2002 Act.

The supplied source contains no court judgments, tribunal decisions, reported cases or litigation statistics interpreting this amendment. It is the amending Act itself, not a consolidated copy of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 or a collection of decisions. No case names are given, and none can be identified from this material alone.

The text does identify questions that may require judicial interpretation if disputes arise. For the child-abuse duty, a court may have to assess what precautions were reasonable in light of the factors listed in s 114BBD(4), including the organisation’s resources, its relationship with the child, the authority or control given to the individual, and compliance with applicable child-safety standards. The provision also leaves the court able to consider other relevant matters. The amendment does not define a minimum set of precautions or explain how different factors are to be weighed.

For the claim-farming offences, potential interpretive questions arise from terms such as “soliciting or inducing”, “for a claim referral”, “fee or other benefit”, “reasonably believes” and “current legal costs” (ss 221B-221C). The text defines some matters, including that a claim referral includes disclosure of a claimant’s personal information, but it does not provide examples of borderline conduct.

The Act also does not say how the new costs repayment consequence has been applied, or how it interacts in practice with a particular bill, retainer or costs dispute. A lawyer assessing a live matter would need to check the current consolidated legislation, relevant regulations and any later decisions. That is a source limitation, not evidence that no litigation exists.

The child-safety division has its own temporal rule. It applies to child abuse that happens, or is alleged to happen, on or after the division commences (s 114BBB). The text does not state that the new duty applies to earlier abuse. The separate amendments to the existing organisational-liability provisions should not be confused with the commencement rule for the new duty.

The organisational duty is not limited to employees. Volunteers, contractors, agents, owners and officers are expressly included, and delegation can connect the delegate organisation’s associated individuals to the principal organisation (s 114BBC). However, an organisation must still be responsible for the child, and the abuse must be connected with that responsibility (s 114BBD(2)-(3)). The amendment excerpt does not reproduce the full test for responsibility, which is relocated to s 114BBA.

“Claimant” includes someone who may have a claim, while “contact” includes approaching someone individually or as part of a class, in person, by post, telephone, email or another electronic communication (ss 221A, 221B(3)). A commercial benefit is an element of the contact offence, but the referral-benefit offence is separately framed and includes arranging benefits or disclosing personal information as part of a referral (s 221C(1)-(2), (5)).

The exceptions are not identical across the two offences. The contact exceptions include certain prior-client and community-referral situations; the referral-payment exceptions include referrals by a law practice acting for the claimant and a qualifying law-practice sale (ss 221B(2), 221C(3)-(4)). Advertising and promotion have a separate exclusion (s 221D). The sale exception requires claimant consent and caps the fee at the claimant’s current legal costs. Finally, the 12-month expiry of Chapter 22 does not erase its transitional effect, according to the note to s 265.

The Act does not prescribe a universal compliance programme, form, recordkeeping system or set of mandatory child-safety procedures. For organisations, the statutory reference point is the duty to take reasonable precautions, assessed in context (s 114BBD(2), (4)). The listed considerations provide a source-based framework for understanding the kinds of matters relevant to that assessment: the organisation’s nature and resources; its relationship with the child; the individual’s position and access to authority, trust or intimacy; and applicable child-safety standards.

The statutory structure makes responsibility, association and connection important factual questions. An organisation’s analysis of the duty would therefore involve identifying which children it is responsible for, which people fall within the broad association categories, whether responsibility has been delegated, and whether an individual’s role gives access or authority relevant to the listed factors (ss 114BBC, 114BBD). This is a description of the issues embedded in the Act, not a determination that any particular precautions are sufficient.

For businesses and professionals dealing with claimants, the provisions turn on the purpose of contact, the existence and direction of a benefit, and whether conduct is a referral or includes disclosure of personal information (ss 221B-221C). The defined scope of the claim, the identity and role of the parties, and any relevant exception also matter. The source expressly identifies conditions for certain contacts and referrals, including prior legal services, reasonable beliefs about objection, a request from a qualifying centre or organisation, claimant consent in a practice sale, and the limit tied to current legal costs.

A compliance review based on this Act would need to distinguish advertising from claimant-specific solicitation, and ordinary referral arrangements from the statutory exceptions. The amendment’s cross-references mean that the relevant Legal Profession Act definitions and any applicable regulations are also part of the picture. This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on, relying on or using this information, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.