The Crime and Policing Act 2026 (the Act) received Royal Assent on 29 April 2026, and with it came one of the most significant changes to civil limitation law in a generation. S 96 of the Act, which came into force on 29 June 2026, removes the three-year limitation period for civil personal injury claims arising from child sexual abuse in England and Wales, shifting the burden of proof squarely onto defendants.

For local authorities and their liability insurers, this is a development that warrants careful consideration - particularly in relation to reserving, records management, and claims handling protocols.

Reasons for change

Prior to the Act, civil claims for child sexual abuse in England and Wales were governed by the Limitation Act 1980, which required a claim to be brought within three years of the date of the event, or - where the abuse occurred during childhood - by the claimant's 21st birthday. Courts did have a discretion to set aside the limitation period under section 33, where it was equitable to do so taking into account the prejudice to the claimant and the prejudice to the defendant.  

This change follows the recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). Survivors, charities, and solicitors responding to consultation made the case that strict time limits presented a barrier to bringing claims, given the well-documented difficulties many survivors face in disclosing abuse within a fixed period. Scotland took a similar legislative step some years earlier, and England and Wales have now followed. The extent to which the limitation period was, in practice, the determinative factor in claims being rejected - as opposed to the broader evidential difficulties that arise from the passage of time - remains a matter of some debate, and will likely be tested as the new framework is applied by the courts.

The new legal framework

Under the Act, the Limitation Act 1980 has been amended to insert new sections which will:

1. remove the three-year limitation period, so that there is now no time period in which a victim of child sexual abuse must pursue a civil claim; and 
2. put the burden on the defendant to satisfy the court that it is not possible for a 'fair hearing' to take place.

There are two important boundaries to note. The changes apply only to civil personal injury claims arising from child sexual abuse - they do not apply to other forms of abuse, such as neglect or physical abuse. Further, the changes do not apply to any claims which have already been settled or adjudicated upon by the court.

What the 'fair hearing' test means in practice

The shift from a balance of prejudice test to a 'fair hearing' test is notable - but its practical impact may be more nuanced than it first appears. While the burden now shifts to defendants to show a fair hearing is not possible, even prior to the change, defendants had an evidential burden to show they would be prejudiced by the claim being pursued out of time which, in practice, meant adducing evidence on the same matters as will now be required to demonstrate that a fair hearing is not possible. It therefore remains to be seen the extent to which this development in the law materially changes the approach taken by defendants.

It remains to be seen precisely how courts will approach the fair hearing test in practice - and in particular whether existing judicial guidance on what constitutes prejudice sufficient to prevent a fair hearing will continue to inform that assessment. What can be said is that defendants should not assume the position is materially worse than it was under the previous section 33 framework: the practical evidential burden defendants faced under that regime was already substantial, and many of the same arguments will remain available. Good records management, as ever, will be central to any fair hearing defence.

Our view

The removal of the limitation period is a significant legislative step, implemented in direct response to IICSA's recommendations. In practice, however, its impact on the outcome of many historical abuse claims may be more limited than the headline suggests: the fair hearing test, which now falls to the defendant to satisfy, reflects much of the same evidential analysis that courts were already applying under the section 33 framework.

In our experience of advising local authorities and their insurers on historical abuse claims, limitation has often featured as only one strand of a broader assessment of claim prospects, with a strong emphasis on considering whether a fair trial remains possible on the evidence available. With the new limitation provisions now in force, it is timely to ensure that claims assessments properly focus on the underlying fair hearing assessment, which is now the operative test. The reasons for any delay in bringing a claim, even if solicitors were instructed for the claimant and could have brought a claim sooner, is no longer a relevant consideration. 

Local authorities that have invested in robust records management over recent years will be well placed; those who have not should take the opportunity to review their position. When considering the fair hearing test, courts will want to see that authorities have complied with their own data retention policies and that the absence of evidence was not avoidable.

For insurers, it is sensible to review whether any reserves have been set on the assumption of a limitation defence success without proper analysis of the underlying fair hearing position. Where that is the case, a focused reassessment is worthwhile. 

Practical takeaways for local authorities and their insurers

• Review open notifications and reserves: Work with your insurers to identify open and dormant historical abuse notifications that were partly reserved on the basis of limitation prospects. Reassess each in light of the new 'fair hearing' legal test..
• Records audit: Conduct a systematic review of historical placement records, residential care files, and foster carer approval documentation. Identify gaps, and where possible digitise surviving records. 
• Update claims handling protocols: Ensure your claims teams understand the new 'fair hearing' burden.
• Engage compassionately with survivors: A proactive, transparent and survivor-sensitive approach to claims, including facilitating access to personal care records, can reduce adversarial temperature and, in appropriate cases, support earlier and more proportionate resolution.

Conclusion

The Crime and Policing Act 2026 removes the limitation period for civil child sexual abuse claims and introduces a new fair hearing test as the primary mechanism to defend claims brought out of time. It is a significant change in the law, though its practical effect on claim outcomes will depend significantly on the facts of individual cases and the quality of records available. This development is a sensible prompt to review claims handling protocols and reserves in a targeted way. We will continue to monitor early judicial guidance on the fair hearing test as it develops, and we are available to advise local authorities and their insurers on the implications for their specific portfolios.