Law Lords extend deadline for abuse claims compensation
In a landmark judgment handed down today, the House of Lords has effectively extended the deadline for some abused victims seeking compensation from their abusers. In some sectors this will also affect employers of those abusers, particularly in health, social care and education.
Previously, under the 1980 Limitation Act, claimants had to bring a claim for sexual assault within six years of their 18th birthday. Claims after this would not be considered by the courts. However, in negligence claims, the victims had only three years from their 18th birthday to start legal proceedings against their abuser's employers but the court could, at their discretion, allow some late cases.
The ruling will mean that for the first time the limitation period in both negligence and assault cases can be extended at the court’s discretion.
In November 2007 the House of Lords heard 5 Appeals on the issue of limitation in abuse cases. All the claimants established sexual assault had taken place. None of the claimants established that employers of their abusers were negligent.
According to legal experts at Midlands law firm Browne Jacobson, who acted for three of the respondents in these appeals, the judgement may well lead to a substantially greater number of allegations being made many years after the alleged abuse.
Sarah Erwin-Jones, Partner in the Social Care Team at Browne Jacobson commented: “This decision has fundamentally changed the existing law on how long claimants have to bring a claim. It is understandable that those who have been convicted of abusing people should be liable to pay compensation to their victims. In very old cases, the more serious the assault, the more likely the courts are to allow claims against convicted abusers to proceed, even after the three year primary limitation period.
“However the House of Lords did make it clear that by no means everyone who brings a late claim for sexual abuse, however genuine, will be able to reasonably expect the court to allow them to bring a claim out of time. How this will work in practice will depend on the facts of each individual case. It is to be hoped that in a year or two, we will see how the court applies its powers and uses those judgments to assess how future cases are likely to fare.
“The fairness of this decision in practice remains to be seen, particularly where there is no conviction. What happens when a claimant decides to bring a claim against someone who was perhaps investigated by the police many years ago, but who was never charged or convicted of those offences? In many cases it will come down to who the judge believes, the alleged abuser or the claimant.”
According to Erwin-Jones the decision will also have major implications for local authority employers and their employees, both past and present.
“Claimants will no longer need to prove negligence. They simply have to prove that they were assaulted and suffered an injury as a result and the employer could be vicariously liable, subject to any limitation defence. This will, at least significantly reduce the costs of investigating many of these cases.
“It will also mean that for employers such as social services departments, schools and health trusts the door on historic abuse claims could remain permanently open. Staff and former staff will have the threat of claims hanging over them for life and this has the potential of opening up floodgates.
“In practice they may have to trace those former members of staff who are the subject of allegations and call them to give evidence about events which are alleged to have happened 10, 20 or even 30 years ago. Time will tell whether this latest decision has struck the right balance between the interests of claimants and defendants,” she concluded.
