Chapter 18

Page 332
A v Hoare and others [2008] UKHL 6

In this case, six different victims of childhood sexual abuse challenged the ruling in Stubbings, according to which their actions for damages for trespass to the person were time barred by the Limitation Act 1980 s.2 because the cause of action accrued more than 6 years before the bringing of proceedings. Here the House of Lords exceptionally chose to depart from its earlier approach, holding that Stubbings had been wrongly decided. The Law Lords felt that there was no practical or moral reason for treating victims of intentional injury less favourably than those who were negligently injured and that it was desirable that there be consistency in the limitation periods applied to all personal injuries. The decision in Letang v Cooper was reinstated, according to which trespass to the person could be included within 'breach of duty'. Therefore s.11 of the 1980 Limitation Act applied and the court had a discretion under s. 33 to extend the limitation period for claimants if the occurrence of 'knowledge' of their injury satisfied the s.14 test.

The facts behind Hoare are unusual. The defendant had committed a serious sexual assault against the claimant and was convicted of attempted rape and sentenced to life imprisonment. 16 years later he received nationwide publicity when he won £7 million in the lottery while on day release from prison. Originally the claimant, who suffered post-traumatic stress disorder, had not sued him for battery because the criminal had no funds but following the lottery win, she sought permission of the court to sue outside the limitation period under s. 33. Following the House of Lords departure from Stubbings and due to the exceptional circumstances of the case, this was granted by the High Court in A v Hoare [2008] EWHC 157.

Page 333
Pierce v Doncaster MBC [2008] EWCA Civ 1416

The appellant was a local authority which had been found liable in negligence for failure, in the face of evidence of serious neglect, to take the claimant, Mr. Pierce, into care as a child. As a result his adulthood was blighted by mental health problems resulting in criminal conduct. The local authority appealed on three issues. The Court of Appeal found that the type of damage which needed to have been foreseeable by the defendants had been injury through bad parenting (rather than a narrower measure of neglect and/or violence) and confirmed the award of £25,000 for long-term psychological damage.

On the limitation, the issue was at what date Mr. Pierce had had constructive knowledge, within the Limitation Act 1980 s.14(3). The question under s 14(3) was 'whether the claimant might reasonably have been expected to acquire the necessary knowledge from facts ascertainable either by himself or with the help of expert advice which it was reasonable for him to seek.' It was found that he had first requested his care records in 1995. They were located and in 1997 the local authority had offered to pay his train fare to come and view them, but he had not done so. P began his action until 2004. The time limit under the Act was three years, and he had clearly had constructive knowledge prior to 2001, therefore the commencement of his action in 2004 was out of time. The consideration of a discretionary extension of the time limit under s. 33 (in the light of A v Hoare) was remitted to the trial judge.

It should be noted that in D v Harrow [2008] the High Court refused to exercise its s.33 discretion in three child abuse actions against local authorities, the facts of which originated in the late '60s and early '70s. It was felt that a fair trial would not be possible in view of the difficulties of providing evidence after such a long passage of time.

View print version

Oxford University Press, Online Resource Centre, Chapter 18.

Chapter 18