House of Lords Decision
on Limitation
The House of Lords have now delivered their awaited judgment in our case of
C v Middlesbrough Council which was heard along with a number of other
cases including the “Lottery Rapist” case and Young v Catholic Care.
As expected the judgment will make it harder for defendant
employers to contest cases involving alleged abuse by their employees.
C’s case involved a young man who alleged abuse by a member
of staff at a residential school in the 1980s. The alleged abuser was
acquitted in a criminal trial but later confessed when he was imprisoned
for another offence.
The lower courts had followed the House of Lords’ judgment
in Stubbings v Webb [1993] and decided that deliberate assaults would
fall within Section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980 with a six year time
bar and no discretion to extend this period, but said that if discretion
could have been applied then it would have been given allowing proceedings
to be brought many years later.
The House of Lords have now said that Stubbings v Webb was
wrongly decided leading to unfair situations (such as S v W [1995] where
a child sued her mother, many years later, for failing to protect her
from abuse by her father, but could not sue her abusive father more than
six years after the event) and have confirmed that a deliberate assault
leading to a personal injury will fall within Section 11 so that proceedings
should be brought within three years but that the time period can be
extended if Section 33 discretion is applied.
The Young case was slightly different from the others as the
appellant had not pursued an argument about deliberate assaults but argued
a late date of knowledge on the basis that he had suppressed the effects
of the abuse. The House of Lords did not accept this argument and took
the view that with a sexual assault or rape the victim will know that
they had been seriously injured at the time, making this a largely objective
test, but that suppression would be one reason for delay in bringing
proceedings to be weighed against other facors in Section 33.
So where
does this leave defendants? In reality most claimants will now simply argue an injury
arising out of a deliberate assault as it will be easier to succeed where
employers will generally be vicariously liable for employees’ actions,
rather than trying to prove negligence. Section 33 will be easier to
overcome as there will be fewer arguments against a fair trial or prejudice
for the defendant if it is accepted that assaults took place. The best
case for employers will be situations where it is not accepted that assaults
necessarily occurred and where complaint was made so long after the event
that it is now impossible for proper investigations to take place.
If you are interested in more detail or have any queries about
the impact on your organisation then please contact Joanne Kingsland
on 0191 2339727 or by email joanne.kingsland@crutes.co.uk.
« Back to 2008 Archives
|
