press release
Unlimiting limitation
8 October 2007
H v Suffolk County Council and X & Y v London Borough of
Wandsworth
Midlands law firm Browne Jacobson is acting
for two of the respondents in five connected House of Lords Appeals
next month. The decision could fundamentally change the existing
law on how long claimants have to bring a claim, giving them access
to the same (extendable) period of time in which to bring a case
regardless of whether it arises out of negligence or deliberate
assault.
All of the cases arise out of alleged sexual
assault. On 12th April 2006 the Court of Appeal gave
judgment in three of the cases. Two concerned Local Authorities
that employed people who committed acts of sexual abuse against
children in their care. The third claim related to the highly
publicised case of the Lottery winning rapist who is being sued by
his victim.
The Court of Appeal was originally forced to
dismiss the appeals because it was bound by the 1993 House of
Lords' decision in Stubbings v Webb. This ruling stated
that claims for damages arising out of intentional sexual assaults,
even though they result in personal injuries, attract a
non-extendable six year limitation period. In addition, it was also
ruled that because the six year limitation period had expired
before the Human Rights Act came into force the Claimants
could not rely on the provisions of that Act for assistance
either.
Following its judgment the Court of Appeal
readily gave permission for the Claimants to appeal to the House of
Lords, so that "…… the House can consider if it can do anything
to rescue the law from its incoherent state without the
intervention of Parliament.’
Sarah Erwin-Jones, social care expert at law
firm Browne Jacobson is leading the team defending two of the Local
Authority appeals. She remarks that, ‘Until the ruling on these
appeals is made, social care and education defendants in child
abuse cases, should continue to plead limitation if a claim for
deliberate assault falls outside the six year period under Section
2 of the Limitation Act 1980. However, it seems likely that the
House of Lords will take this opportunity to review the
law.’
She points out that although the cases relate
to Local Authority care and the education of children the decision
is likely to have wide reaching implications for health and adult
care providers as well.
‘If the House of Lords decides to depart
from the existing case law it will be much easier and cheaper for
claimants to establish vicarious liability for a deliberate assault
by an employee than it is to prove that the employer was negligent.
Staff and former staff may also face allegations of assault many
years after the claimant reaches eighteen years of age.’
save to PDF