WCC v Steer

In a civil claim arising from historic sexual abuse, criminal convictions established the convicted assaults but did not determine whether additional alleged incidents occurred. The civil court had to assess the unproven allegations on the balance of probabilities.

Psychiatric injury with both tortious and non-tortious causes should be assessed using a broad-brush division rather than an arithmetical allocation. Where post-traumatic stress disorder was wholly attributable to the tort, no apportionment was required. Aggravated damages may be awarded compensatorily where the defendant’s conduct has materially increased the claimant’s suffering, subject to avoiding double recovery.

The claimant sought damages for psychiatric injury and related losses arising from alleged sexual abuse by the defendant between 1978 and 1981. The defendant had been convicted of two offences involving the claimant, but acquitted of five other allegations.

After an earlier damages hearing, the claimant elected to pursue liability for the unproven allegations. The defendant’s defence was reinstated for that purpose, and the matter proceeded as a combined liability and damages trial. The central issues were whether the five further incidents were proved on the balance of probabilities and, if so, the extent and causation of the claimant’s psychiatric injury.

1. Liability for the further incidents. The defendant’s criminal convictions established two assaults and could not be revisited. They did not, however, require the court to treat the remaining allegations as false merely because the jury had not been sure of them to the criminal standard. The judge assessed the evidence independently on the balance of probabilities and found that the five further incidents had occurred.
2. Causation and psychiatric injury. The psychiatric evidence established several conditions with mixed causes. Following the guidance in BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd v Konczak [2017] EWCA Civ 1188, the court adopted a broad-brush assessment. It first assessed the general psychiatric harm on the assumption that it was wholly attributable to the tort, then apportioned 60% to the defendant’s abuse to reflect other contributing factors. The post-traumatic stress disorder was wholly attributable to the abuse and required no reduction.
3. Damages. General damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity were assessed at £55,000. The judge considered comparable awards, including ABC v West Heath 2000 [2015] EWHC 2687 (QB), REA v Nottinghamshire County Council [2018] EWHC 403 and EB v Haughton [2011] EWHC 279 (QB).
4. Aggravated damages. Such damages are compensatory, not punitive. The defendant’s persistent denials and allegations of fabrication materially compounded the claimant’s suffering. Applying the approach discussed in Rowlands v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [2007] 1 WLR 1065, £10,000 was awarded while ensuring that the overall award remained fair and avoided double recovery.
5. Therapy and travel costs of £10,530 and interest of £4,225 were awarded. Judgment was entered for £79,755, together with the claimant’s costs subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

• Deputy master: Struck out the defence and counterclaim and entered judgment for damages to be assessed, relying in part on the defendant’s criminal convictions.
• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Following an earlier damages hearing before Spencer J, the defence was reinstated in relation to the five unproven allegations. The present court found those allegations proved and entered judgment for £79,755.