C v Middlesbrough (for the former Cleveland County Council)

Crutes Law Firm recently represented Middlesbrough (as successor authority for Cleveland County Council) in the Court of Appeal in a claim, which had the potential to seriously damage councils’ chances of defending claims involving abuse of children many years ago.

The Claimant C was resident at a school for boys with emotional and behavioural difficulties between 1982 and 1988. In 1988, at the age of 16, he disclosed to a member of staff that a male care worker, for a number of years, had sexually abused him. The alleged abuser, MB, was acquitted at a criminal trial later that year but it is understood that he confessed many years later when in prison for another offence.

Proceedings were not brought until May 2002 when C had reached the age of 30 although it was known that he had made an earlier claim to CICA and had consulted solicitors in 1998. His medical records also suggested that he was aware of the damage caused by the abuse in December 1996.

The crux of C`s case was that the council should be vicariously liable for the assaults and should also be found negligent in not properly assessing and monitoring the acts of their employee.

The court of first instance found first that the assaults had taken place and that the council would be vicariously liable due to the close connection to MB’s job but agreed with our argument that the claim was statute barred as assault and trespass fall within s2 of the Limitation Act 1980 which has a non-extendable six year time period for bringing the claim.

The court then went on to deal with a claim of breach of duty by the council within s11 of the Act which allows for claims to be brought within 3 years of an injury or date of knowledge of the seriousness of that injury. This three year period is extendable as allowed by s33 and the court must weigh up the relative prejudice to each party in allowing the claim to proceed or not.

The court found that C first knew he had suffered a serious injury in December 1996 which means that his claim should have been brought by December 1999. However, the court went on to allow the claim to be brought late because it found the council was not prejudiced. This is because it came out in evidence that witnesses who had not been traced may have been available for us to speak to them. These claims are notoriously expensive to defend and this case demonstrates that defendants must jump through every hoop to try and find documents and witnesses before a court will rule that the balance of prejudice falls in favour of the defendant.

Fortunately the court went on to find that the council was not in breach of duty; that all proper checks had been made when MB was employed, that he had no previous convictions and that management( being aware of the signs of abuse) had provided adequate supervision but could not have known what was going on.

C then appealed on two main grounds. First, that the judge was wrong to say the council was not negligent, which the appeal judges disagreed with as this was a matter of fact.

Secondly C argued that the vicarious liability for the assault should fall in s11 so that the time period could be extended. If allowed this would have had very serious implications for councils making it almost impossible to defend a claim where an employee had assaulted or abused someone in the course of their employment (however long ago)

The appeal judges disagreed saying that a deliberate or intentional act like abuse could not fall within negligence or breach of duty and that s2 was the correct section for this type of claim. Whilst this means claims for assault would be hard to defend if brought within six years we know from experience that most are brought much later.

is currently taking advice on whether to appeal to the House of Lords.

« Back to 2005 Archives