AB & Ors v The Nugent Care Society (Formerly Catholic Social Services (Liverpool))

Under sections 14 and 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, historic abuse claims require an individual assessment of knowledge, inhibition, delay and evidential prejudice.

Knowledge of significant injury may arise before a claimant seeks medical advice or learns that litigation is available. Psychological inhibition is relevant, but is a factor rather than a decisive answer. The more serious the known injury, the less weight inhibition may carry. Section 33 relief depends on the balance of prejudice, including the cogency of evidence after prolonged delay and the strength of the proposed claim. On the facts, two claims were statute-barred without equitable relief, while a third proceeded because the evidence disclosed a strong liability case and no apparent causation difficulty.

Three sample claims were selected from group litigation concerning alleged abuse at St Aidans and St Vincents, institutions managed by the defendant. Each claimant alleged negligence, and in substance relied on the defendant’s responsibility for institutional systems and staff conduct.

The defendant raised limitation. The court first considered whether the claims were brought within time under section 14 of the Limitation Act 1980, and then whether time should be extended under section 33. The central questions were when each claimant knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of significant injury and its connection with the defendant, and whether it would be equitable to disapply the ordinary limitation provisions.

1. Preliminary issue. The court declined to determine limitation as a preliminary issue before hearing evidence because that course was not feasible on the pleadings and witness material. After hearing the evidence, it ruled on limitation during the trial.
2. Section 14. The statutory inquiry includes actual knowledge and knowledge reasonably obtainable from observable facts or reasonable expert advice. The objective concept of reasonableness applies both to the seriousness of the injury and to the need to seek expert advice. The inhibiting effect of abuse may be considered, but it is not decisive. The question remains whether, having regard to the claimant’s knowledge of the injury and its inhibiting consequences, he would reasonably have regarded it as sufficiently serious to justify proceedings.
3. All three claimants had actual awareness of the abuse and its continuing adverse effects well before the dates relied upon. Their avoidance, shame, alcohol or drug use and reluctance to complain did not postpone knowledge of significant injury. The submissions based on delayed knowledge of the facts supporting negligence and the identity of responsible persons were also rejected.
4. Section 33. The court had to consider all the circumstances, particularly the length and reasons for delay, the deterioration of evidence, the defendant’s conduct, disability, the claimant’s conduct and steps taken to obtain advice. After delays of 27 and 14 years after expiry of the relevant limitation periods, the loss of documents and witnesses substantially prejudiced the defendant. Relief was therefore refused to JM and JB.
5. Relief was granted to PL. Although his section 14 case failed, the evidence disclosed a strong case that the headmaster had devised and implemented inadequate systems while personally abusing him and facilitating abuse by another. There was no apparent causation difficulty, and Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd provided prima facie support for the vicarious-liability case. The section 11 limitation provisions were directed not to apply, and the action was allowed to continue.

The judgment describes three claims selected as samples within wider group litigation. No prior judgment or appeal is stated.