It is understandable that victims of childhood sexual and physical abuse do not come forward for many years after the incidents of abuse. The law, however, does make provision for such claims which means that a Claimant may still be successful against the Defendant many years after the abuse took place.
The Limitation Act 1980
The relevant Act of Parliament (Statutory Law) is the Limitation Act 1980. The way in which the Limitation Act 1980 works has been looked at in great detail by the Courts over the years and, more recently, in the House of Lords Judgement in A – v – Hoare (2008) which has now provided a fairer system for victims to bring their claims many years later.
Before the decision in A – v – Hoare a Claimant who brought proceedings for the deliberate assaults themselves was subject to a strict six year time period under s.2 Limitation Act 1980; if the incidents occurred when the Claimant was a minor then this period would run from their 18th Birthday expiring on their 24th Birthday.
A Claimant who, however, brought his proceedings in negligence under s.11 was granted a three year time limit, again running from their 18th Birthday if a child at the time of the abuse, but was allowed to rely on the provisions of s.14 (Date of Knowledge) and s.33 (Discretion of the Court) of the Limitation Act 1980 if the three years had expired.
S.14 describes what is known as the ‘Date of Knowledge’ of the Claimant. Under s.11 the three year time limit can run from the ‘Date of Knowledge’ if later than the original three year time limit.
S.33 is a provision that allows the Court to exercise its discretion to dis-apply the time limit and this discretion is unfettered.
The House of Lords in A – v – Hoare ruled that s.11 could also apply to claims involving intentional and deliberate assaults causing personal injury thereby allowing the Claimant who does not have recourse in negligence to reply on the provisions of s.14 and s.33 Limitation Act 1980.
In this respect, the issues of fact have become a great deal simpler in bringing proceedings for childhood abuse and maltreatment were such incidents of abuse were committed by an employee acting within the course of his/her employment, for example, the staff at a Children’s Home. This is because the Claimant no longer needs to prove systemic negligence on the part of the Defendant which can involve vast investigations, volumes of documentation and expense expert’s reports. Instead, providing the Claimant can prove that the acts of abuse took place and that such abuse was committed whilst the employee was acting within the course of their employment, liability will be established.
