The Times - Churches braced for flood of abuse claims after landmark ruling

besty

Basically there was a 6 year time limit after which a claim would go 'stale' and could no longer be brought to the courts - this has now been overturned....

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3279532.ece

and

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3276026.ece

Churches, schools and charities braced for flood of claims after ruling on Lotto rapist, Iorworth Hoare
The removal yesterday of a six-year limit on seeking compensation for a sexual assault clears the way for many more victims to sue
Frances Gibb. Legal Editor and David Sanderson

Thousands of victims of sexual abuse including a woman whose life was ruined by the so-called Lotto rapist are preparing to lodge compensation claims after a landmark ruling by Britain’s highest court yesterday.

Local authorities, churches, schools, charities and insurers are bracing themselves for claims that could total millions of pounds.

The ruling by five law lords comes in six test cases, including that of Mrs A, a retired teacher attacked by Iorworth Hoare, who later won £7 million on the lottery while in prison. He served 16 years of a life sentence for her attempted rape. At least two more of Mr Hoare’s victims are considering legal action, DLA Piper, the firm that represented Mrs A, said. The women approached the firm in November.

As The Times revealed yesterday, the law lords swept away the bar on bringing claims for sexual assault more than six years after an attack. Instead, courts should have discretion to allow claims to go ahead outside the time limit, they said.
Related Links

* Great news, says neighbour — I hope she takes every penny

* ‘I did not bring this case for the money – it is a fight for justice’

All the individual cases will now go back to the courts so that they can be reconsidered in the light of the findings by Lord Hoffmann, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell and Lord Brown of Easton-under-Heywood.

Mrs A, who received £5,000 in compensation two years ago from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for the attempted rape in 1988,is maintaining her anonymity. In a statement read by Sandra Baker, of DLA Piper, she said: “I am delighted and relieved that my appeal to the House of Lords has been successful and that I have succeeded in changing a law which will provide others with a means of achieving justice.”

Mrs A’s claim and the other test cases are likely now to come back to the courts within months. Mrs A hopes to recover enough to repay the £5,000 from the compensation board.

That, her lawyers said, was her aim. “If there is anything awarded above that, it is a bonus. But she has always said this is not about money,” they said.

Mrs A was originally ordered to pay Mr Hoare’s £100,000 legal fees after unsuccessful attempts to bring a case for compensation in the High Court and Court of Appeal. Costs for the appeal have yet to be decided but it is likely that Mr Hoare will be ordered to repay the £100,000 plus legal costs.

In another of the cases, Kevin Young, 49, claims that he suffered sexual abuse when in the care of Catholic Care in Leeds in the 1970s and in a Home Office detention centre. He sought to bring a claim in 2003, more than 20 years after the expiry of the time limit for such claims.

Kathy Perrin, of the law firm Hill Dickinson, who acted for Catholic Care, said that it took comfort from the ruling because not all historic claims would be able to proceed. Judges would have a discretion in such cases and if victims delayed a claim for “psychosocial reasons” that would not be enough to allow a claim to go ahead late, she said.

The law lords ruled that the present law was anomalous and forced victims to try to prove negligence to get around the time bar. Judges have discretion on whether to allow negligence claims to proceed, but sexual assault claims have a six-year limit.

Test of time
Five other test cases were involved in the landmark decision:

C v Middlesbrough council The claimant was subjected to sexual abuse between 1982 and 1988 at a council-managed school. The judge said that C would have got damages of nearly £100,000 but that the claim was barred by the Limitation Act and dismissed allegations of negligence against the council

H v Suffolk County Council The appellant claimed that while at a school for difficult children managed by the council he was sexually abused by a member of staff. He brought proceedings 12 years later. Case was thrown out because it was out of time

X, Y v Wandsworth London borough The two appellants allege that between 1984 and 1987 they were abused by one teacher at a council-managed school. They brought proceedings more than 15 years later and were told that they would have won damages but for the fact that they were outside the time limit

Y v Catholic Care and Home Office The claimant alleges that sexual abuse by employees at a school and a detention centre. His claims were again barred by the Limitation Act

belbab

This great news Besty,

Not just for England, but for all the world.

just keeping this post at the top and carry it over our night time so it does not sink out of sight.

belbab

AWAKE&WATCHING

I do believe this is one of the best posts I've read in quite some time.

THANK YOU for posting this.

How's that for new light?

Damn - I just quoted myself.

besty

please if you have been a victim of JW child abuse contact andersonsinfo or ladylee or PM me

besty

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7218552.stm

Legal milestone for abuse victims

Professor Jon Silverman
University of Bedfordshire

The Lords aimed to tidy up a legal anomaly

There is little doubt that the Lords judgment is a highly significant one - even a landmark.

But it is unfortunate that media discussion has tended to be dominated by the case of the so-called "Lottery rapist", Iorworth Hoare, because the impact is likely to be far more profound on the other class of case - claims for compensation for sex abuse committed many years before.

As Lord Hoffmann says in his lead judgment: "People who commit sexual assaults are seldom worth suing." And Mrs A brought her action against Hoare only after she heard he had won the lottery.

Thus, it is unlikely that we will now see a spate of claims brought by their victims against rapists and sex attackers.

But the position of people who claim that they were abused as children in homes and institutions has immeasurably improved. This is because the law at the moment requires a court to take account of their "state of knowledge" when deciding if they have a legitimate claim for negligence.

'Dragging on'

In other words, they have to establish when they realised that they had suffered a significant injury as a result of the abuse.

My phone has hardly stopped ringing since this judgment alt

Paul Durkin
Solicitor

In the case of claims against homes run by Catholic charities, for example, this has proved a considerable obstacle and many cases have been bogged down in years of unproductive litigation.

The Lords ruling means that courts will now be able to use their discretion when deciding what it called cases of "systemic negligence".

Solicitor Paul Durkin, of the specialist firm, Abney Garsden McDonald, is representing 120 claimants in three class actions against charities which ran homes where sex abuse is alleged.

"My phone has hardly stopped ringing since this judgment," he says. "Two of these cases have been dragging on for 11 years because the defendants - the charities - have been arguing that the actions are out of time.

"But I believe that the Lords ruling will encourage them to settle now because my clients have a far better chance of proving negligence."

Taking heart

The Lords themselves gave an example where the present law produced a bizarre anomaly. In 1995, a woman sued both her father and mother for sexual abuse committed by the father.

The action was begun almost 10 years after the last act of abuse and was struck out on the grounds that too much time had elapsed. The case against the mother was based on negligence and was allowed by the court using its discretion.

It was this anomaly which persuaded the Law Commission to examine the issue in 2001, producing a report which called for law change which was never implemented by the government because it had wider implications for the limitation on legal actions.

Although there is likely to be a greater willingness by defendants to settle as a result of this judgment, some will, no doubt, continue to argue that they are disadvantaged in having to counter claims of abuse allegedly committed years, perhaps decades, before.

The balance has certainly changed - and survivors of childhood abuse will be taking heart from that.

llbh

Hi Besty,

I heard about that and i thought the same as you, this is potentially dynamite. The ruling as i am sure you noted was from the House of Lords, which gives it the highest authority, unless it goes to Europe, which is possble, though i doubt.

The six year rule being overturned is sinificant because ot the type of case. This could directly impinge on the WTS due to the way they cover up child abuse cases.

I have repeatedly said the achille's heal of the wts is the way they deal with child abuse cases, this ruling could be the way in. Any inititial challenge could be expensive, but once a precedent is set then all future litigant/ victims will find it easier and cheaper

Thanks for posting this Paul.

Keep bttt the thread as will I this is a potentially very imortant .

David