A v Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Trustees of) & Ors

A court may disapply the limitation period where, after balancing prejudice, it is equitable to allow a historic abuse claim to proceed and a fair trial remains possible. Knowledge under section 14 of the Limitation Act 1980 requires a belief held with sufficient confidence and substance to justify taking preliminary steps towards proceedings; mere suspicion is insufficient. Vicarious liability may arise where a relationship is sufficiently close to employment, including within a religious organisation. The relevant connection exists where abuse is facilitated by the offender’s actual or ostensible religious status and duties, rather than by mere opportunity. A body responsible for safeguarding members may also owe a direct duty of care where it has assumed responsibility for protection following known sexual abuse.

The claimant sought damages for sexual abuse committed between 1989 and 1994 by Peter Stewart, a deceased ministerial servant of a Jehovah’s Witness congregation. Liability was advanced both vicariously for the assaults and vicariously for the elders’ alleged failure in 1990 to protect children after learning that Stewart had sexually abused another child.

The court considered knowledge under sections 11 and 14 of the Limitation Act 1980, discretionary disapplication under section 33, vicarious liability, and whether the elders owed and breached a direct duty of care. Quantum had been agreed subject to liability.

1. Limitation. The claimant knew that she had suffered significant injury, but her information before March 2014 amounted only to suspicion that the elders had known of Stewart’s offending. It was not held with sufficient confidence to justify commencing preliminary legal steps. She therefore lacked section 14 knowledge until the defendants’ witness statements were served.
2. Under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, the court had to balance prejudice to the claimant against prejudice to the defendants, considering all the circumstances. Section 33(3) identified matters requiring particular attention but did not fetter the broad discretion. The delay was substantially explained by post-traumatic stress disorder. Although evidence had deteriorated, a fair trial remained possible. The limitation provisions were accordingly disapplied for both claims, including alternatively for the safeguarding claim if section 14 knowledge had arisen earlier.
3. Assault claim. Applying the two-stage approach in Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society and the signposts discussed in E v English Province of Our Lady of Charity, the relationship between Jehovah’s Witnesses and ministerial servants was sufficiently close to employment. The organisation exercised extensive control, had a hierarchical structure, integrated ministerial servants into its activities, and did not place them in business on their own account.
4. The abuse was closely connected with Stewart’s actual or ostensible status and duties as a ministerial servant. His religious position enabled access to the claimant and created trust and authority. The abuse was therefore more than a misuse of mere opportunity, and the defendants were vicariously liable.
5. Safeguarding claim. The elders assumed responsibility, following knowledge of Stewart’s abuse of another child, to protect children in the congregation. That assumption created sufficient proximity and made it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care. At a minimum, the duty required warnings to the congregation and individual parents. The claimant and her mother were not adequately warned, constituting a breach. The congregational trustees were vicariously liable for the elders’ breach.
6. The claim succeeded. Judgment was entered for the claimant, with an order to reflect the agreed quantum.

First-instance judgment. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.