A Collection is a selection of features, articles, comments and opinions on any given theme or topic. It allows you to stay up‑to‑date with what interests you most.
Login here to access your saved articles and followed authors.
We have sent you an email so you can reset your password.
Sorry, we had a problem.
Tags related to this article
Published 31 October 2019
The question of whether a limitation defence may defeat a claim for abuse many years ago has been considered by the Court in its recent judgment in Dunn v Durham County Council, the judgment in which was handed down on 25 October 2019.
A long-running and well-known case, this matter had been considered by the Court of Appeal in 2012 in relation to whether the names of and information relating to third parties should be disclosed if of relevance to the issues in a case as part of the duties of disclosure provided by the Civil Procedure Rules.
The claim related to physical abuse alleged to have been suffered by the Claimant in the early 1980s. The Claimant’s representatives sent a letter of claim in 2007 alleging abuse by two individuals and issued proceedings in 2011, the proceedings making allegations of abuse against two more members of staff.
The Defendant conceded that it was vicariously liable for any assaults proven against its employees, but defended the claim on the basis that it was statute barred, put the Claimant to proof as to the assaults alleged and disputed the causation of psychological injuries alleged.
Whilst the employees named in the proceedings remained available to give evidence, denying assaults and provocation and asserting that the techniques of restraint used were viewed as suitable at the time, the judge was concerned at the passage of time (for which no explanation was given) before proceedings were issued and the impact of delay on the cogency of the evidence of the witnesses.
Taking into account the difficulty in assessing what was acceptable practice over 30 year ago, the judge found that the prejudice suffered by the Defendant as a consequence of the Claimant’s delay prevented a fair trial; the judge refused to exercise his discretion (provided by s.33 of the Limitation Act 1980) and the abuse claim was dismissed as it was statute-barred.
Whilst there are many abuse cases in which Claimants are allowed to pursue historic claims many years after the events alleged to have taken place, limitation remains a defence available to Defendants which should be raised in appropriate cases in order to defend abuse claims.
Limitation is, of course, under review by the Independent Inquiry IICSA.
DAC Beachcroft Claims Limited represented the Defendant Council in these proceedings. For more information or advise on specialist liability claims, please contact Andrea Ward.
+44(0)191 404 4147
+44 (0)191 404 4141
José María Pimentel, Sara Toribio
Laura Wiseman, Mark Bailey, Georgia Court
Anthony Carrington, Helen Mason
David Williams, David Johnson
Emma Fuller, Jade Batstone, Daniel Miller
Sally Roff, Chris Baranowski
Charlotte Le Maire
Peter Allchorne, David Williams
Sara May, Mark Ashley, Liam Riley