A v The Archbishop of Birmingham

In assessing damages for childhood sexual abuse, the diagnostic label attached to a claimant’s mental illness is secondary to its effect on care needs and earning capacity. A claimant is a “patient” for capacity purposes only if, because of mental disorder, he cannot manage the particular property or affairs in issue. Needing advice, assistance or prompting, vulnerability to exploitation, or a history of imprudent decisions does not itself establish incapacity. The burden rests on the party asserting incapacity, subject to the presumption that adults have capacity. Gratuitous family care is recoverable only where it is significantly beyond ordinary family support. Where reasonable arrangements, including a special needs trust, can preserve means-tested benefits, damages should not include an avoidable loss of those benefits.

The defendants had admitted liability for failing to prevent a Catholic priest’s prolonged sexual abuse of the claimant during childhood. The trial concerned assessment of damages, including psychiatric injury, loss of earnings, accommodation and support, loss of benefits, receivership costs, and family care.

The principal disputes concerned the diagnosis and prognosis of the claimant’s mental illness, whether he was incapable of managing the substantial damages award, and whether the award would cause the loss of benefits funding his supported accommodation in Northern Ireland.

1. Assessment of psychiatric injury and earnings. The claimant suffered PTSD and, if a further classification was required, a form of schizophrenia. The symptoms displayed in 1997 and 2000, their duration, the absence of the rapid fluctuation and resolution required for acute polymorphic psychotic disorder, and the treatment provided supported that conclusion. The court nevertheless regarded the effect of the illness on care needs and employment as more important than the diagnostic label.
2. Damages. The court awarded £50,000 general damages, £138,450 for past loss of earnings and £432,994 for future loss of earnings, subject to deductions of £15,000 for residual earning capacity and £7,000 for saved utilities. It awarded £5,000 for cautious cognitive behavioural therapy, £9,240 for future family care, and past care to be calculated using the stated hourly and mileage rates and discounts.
3. Patient status and capacity. Whether a person is a patient depends on the time, context and particular transaction. The relevant question was whether the claimant could understand, retain and use advice about managing the damages fund and communicate decisions. The Court of Protection’s earlier appointment of a receiver was not conclusive. The claimant needed advice, help and prompting, but the evidence did not establish incapacity. He was therefore not a patient and was not entitled to future receivership costs.
4. Means testing. If the claimant had been a patient, the interaction between English and Northern Irish arrangements might have created a difficulty. A special needs trust could, however, avoid means testing. Since that was a reasonable available measure, no damages were awarded for loss of means-tested benefits.
5. Family care. Family care was recoverable only where it was noticeably or significantly beyond what ordinary family life would provide. The court allowed qualifying past care subject to a broad discount for general support, love and encouragement, and allowed a limited sum for future assistance with the claimant’s affairs.
6. Cannabis. The court made no award for loss said to arise from anticipated cannabis use. It therefore did not need to decide whether such loss would in principle have been recoverable.

First-instance assessment of damages following the defendants’ admission of liability. Liability judgment was entered on 8 October 2004; the present judgment assessed damages.