RAR v GGC

When deciding whether to disapply the limitation period for a personal injury claim, the court must consider whether it is fair and just for the claim to proceed in all the circumstances. The length of delay matters principally through its effect on the cogency of evidence and the defendant’s ability to investigate and defend the claim. The claimant’s reasons for delay, including psychological disability caused by the alleged abuse, are also material. Loss of a limitation defence is not, by itself, the relevant prejudice. A conviction may establish commission of the offence under section 11(2) of the Civil Evidence Act 1968, unless the defendant proves the contrary on the civil standard.

The claimant sought damages from her step-father for physical and sexual assaults allegedly committed between 1972 and 1977, when she was aged between seven and 12. Proceedings were issued in 2011, outside the primary limitation period. The defendant denied the assaults, maintained that his earlier guilty plea to one indecent assault had been made under duress, and relied on limitation.

The court considered whether to exercise its discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, whether the assaults were proved, and the claimant’s resulting injury, loss and damages.

1. The claim was brought outside the primary limitation period, but it was fair and just to permit it to proceed under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980.

2. The relevant assessment required consideration of all the circumstances, including the length and reasons for delay, the effect of delay on the cogency of evidence, the defendant’s conduct and opportunity to investigate, any disability affecting the claimant, and the steps taken to obtain advice. The claimant’s mental illness and the distress inherent in recounting childhood sexual abuse materially contributed to the delay.

3. The defendant had received early notice through the criminal proceedings and his evidence showed that he could recall the relevant period. The case depended principally on the evidence of the claimant and defendant. Their evidence remained sufficiently cogent for a fair trial. The loss of the limitation defence was not, by itself, the relevant prejudice.

4. Under section 11(2) of the Civil Evidence Act 1968, the defendant was taken to have committed the indecent assault of which he had been convicted unless he proved the contrary. His explanation that he pleaded guilty to spare the claimant the ordeal of giving evidence did not establish duress.

5. The claimant’s evidence was accepted. The court found that the defendant had physically and sexually abused her over approximately five years and that he alone was responsible. The abuse caused serious psychiatric injury, self-harm and scarring.

6. Judgment was entered for the claimant in the sum of £470,034.90, comprising damages of £359,640.09 and interest of £110,394.81.