Stephanie Prior, Partner
Email Stephanie
A recent case on child abuse has led to an update in child abuse law. In the case the court exercised its discretion to disapply the limitation period in an action for damages for pyschological injuries caused by sexual assaults.
At Anthony Gold we recognise that child abuse cases can be traumatic and all our clients are represented by a lawyer who specialises exclusively in injury and abuse compensation claims. We ensure that you have the opportunity to meet with us face-to-face and to speak to us whenever you need to, in the strictest of confidence. If you would like to make an enquiry regarding a child abuse claim email Stephanie Prior, a specialist abuse claims lawyer, or call her directly on 020 7940 4001. All calls will remain strictly confidential.
The case that has led to an update in child abuse law can be read on Lawtel. Full details are:
EB v John Haughton (2011)
[2011] EWHC 279 (QB)
Personal Injury - Civil Procedure
The court exercised its discretion to disapply the limitation period in an action for damages for psychological injuries caused by sexual assaults.
The claimant (E) claimed damages from the defendant (H) for psychological injuries caused by his sexual abuse of her. E claimed that H had sexually abused her over the course of a year in 1993 when she was between 10 and 11 years old. She claimed that he had stroked her legs and breasts, and that he had once digitally penetrated her vagina under the guise of giving her a massage. In 1994 she had told social services that she was uncomfortable around H. At around the same time she told a friend and a foster carer about some of the assaults. In 2003 H pleaded guilty to the indecent assault of another young girl and the following year E made a statement to the police. In 2006 H was acquitted of the offences forming the basis of E's civil action. Notwithstanding the expiry of the limitation period, E began civil proceedings in early 2008, issuing a claim form in late 2009. Before the court could consider liability and quantum it therefore had to consider whether to exercise its discretion under the Limitation Act 1980 s.33 to allow the action to proceed. E submitted that her claim had been conclusively statute-barred until the decision in A v Hoare (2008) UKHL 6, (2008) 1 AC 844; that she had been a minor for some of the time since the accrual of the cause of action; and that a fair trial was possible. H argued that E had not shown any good reason for her delay in issuing proceedings and that requiring him to face stale allegations more than seven years after the expiry of the limitation period constituted prejudice.
HELD: (1) The limitation period would be disapplied. The evidence in support of E's allegations was cogent. The types of assault she alleged were unusual; she maintained, credibly, that her recollection of them was clear; and she had mentioned them to others. In addition, some weight was to be given to H's plea of guilty to a strikingly similar offence (see paras 71-72, 77 of judgment). Save for the period between early 2008 and late 2009, for which no good explanation had been given, E's delay in issuing the proceedings was explicable. She would have been satisfied if H had been convicted for the assaults, it was only after his acquittal that she thought about bringing civil proceedings, and it was not unreasonable for her to await the outcome of the criminal trial. While a precautionary claim could have been lodged it was not unreasonable for her to await the decision of the House of Lords in Hoare (paras 78-79, 82-84). H would suffer little or no prejudice if the limitation period were extended. The allegations were the same as those made in the criminal proceedings and he had been made fully aware of them in 2005. While he had not been notified of the possibility of civil proceedings for more than a year after his acquittal, he did not suggest that any evidence was lost by reason of the delay. The issue was one of recollection, and the assessment of E's recollection as against H's would be central. While the authorities did not go so far as to state that lack of prejudice to the defendant would trump all other considerations, it was a factor that was to be given considerable weight, Hoare, B v Nugent Care Society (2009) EWCA Civ 827, (2010) 1 WLR 516 and Cain v Francis (2008) EWCA Civ 1451, (2009) QB 754 followed (paras 87-92). (2) As to liability, E's evidence was to be preferred to that of H. Her allegations were found proved (paras 99, 103, 121-123). The psychiatric evidence was that in the years since the assaults she had suffered from an emotional disorder, a generalised anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. The assaults were the principal cause of her continuing mental health problems. The guidelines on psychiatric damage issued by the Judicial Studies Board were to be taken into consideration in valuing such claims and general damages would be awarded in the sum of £28,000. An award of aggravated damages was not appropriate (paras 134-137, 143-151).'
For further information email Stephanie Prior or call her in confidence on 020 7940 4001.
