AB & Ors v The Nugent Care Society

Under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, the discretion to extend time is unfettered and must be exercised by weighing the individual circumstances, including delay, evidential cogency, the parties’ conduct, disability, reasons for delay and proportionality. Psychological consequences of sexual abuse may explain delay and support an extension where the evidence remains sufficiently cogent. Where no identifiable psychiatric disorder is proved, its adverse psychological effects may still inform general damages for assault, but do not ordinarily justify a separate award.

Three former residents of children’s institutions brought historic abuse claims against the defendant, formerly Catholic Social Services, Liverpool. The claims formed part of a group with extensive procedural history. The court considered limitation, liability, causation and damages in relation to JA and JPM, and limitation in relation to RM.

The central issues were whether the limitation period should be extended under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, whether the alleged abuse was proved on the balance of probabilities, and how any psychological consequences should be compensated.

1. JA. The limitation period was extended. The claimant’s psychological response to abuse substantially explained the delay, and the evidence had suffered little significant loss of cogency. The defendant’s tactical decision not to obtain evidence from the alleged abuser was relevant to the section 33 discretion, although it was not finally characterised as conduct under section 33(3)(c). The abuse was proved, and the defendant was vicariously liable.
2. JA had no identifiable psychiatric illness or disorder. The adverse psychological consequences nevertheless formed part of the general assessment of damages for assault, including injury to feelings, indignity, distress and humiliation. A separate award for psychiatric injury was inappropriate. Damages were £10,000, with £2,000 interest.
3. JPM. The limitation period had already been extended. The court permitted further evidence and cross-examination despite the earlier procedural history. The core allegations of abuse by Milligan, Barber and Hepburn were proved on the balance of probabilities. The abuse made a material contribution to later difficulties and PTSD. The court awarded £37,500 general damages, £2,000 special damages and £6,000 interest.
4. RM. The court declined to extend time. Although abuse may have occurred and the claim was proportionate, the successive accounts contained serious discrepancies and important defence evidence had been lost through delay. There was a real risk of injustice if the claim proceeded. The action was dismissed as out of time.

The judgment records earlier proceedings in the same group, including decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal. Those decisions form part of the same litigation and are not separately treated as cited authorities here.