AB v Chethams School of Music

Under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, the possibility of a fair trial is necessary but not sufficient for disapplication of the limitation period. The court must balance the claimant’s prejudice from losing a trial against the defendant’s procedural prejudice caused by delay. The relevant prejudice is prejudice to the ability to defend, not loss of the limitation defence or liability to pay damages. In a single trial, the court must avoid allowing findings on the merits to drive the limitation decision, but may use its overall assessment of the evidence when evaluating delay and cogency. In sexual abuse cases, vicarious liability may extend to assaults away from school premises where grooming and abuse began within the teacher-pupil relationship and there is a strong causative link with the employment. A concurrent guardianship role does not necessarily break that connection.

The claimant, aged 15 to 16, attended the defendant specialist music school during the 1996–97 academic year. She alleged that her violin teacher, who was also her guardian, sexually assaulted her at school and while hosting her at his car and flat. The claim was brought many years after the ordinary and child-extended limitation periods.

The court determined whether to disapply the limitation period, whether the assaults occurred, and whether the school was vicariously liable for them. The central questions were whether the delay caused relevant procedural prejudice to the defendant and whether the teacher’s employment was sufficiently closely connected with assaults committed during the guardianship arrangement.

1. Limitation. The claimant discharged the burden under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980. The court recognised the very long delay and the claimant’s periods of compartmentalisation, but found that the issues were narrow, the principal witnesses remained available, and no material witness, document or investigative opportunity had been shown to have been lost. A fair trial was possible and it was fair and just for the claim to proceed. The only prejudice identified for the defendant was losing the limitation defence, which was legally irrelevant. The limitation period was therefore disapplied.
2. Facts. The claimant’s account was accepted as honest and reliable. The court found that the teacher had initiated and controlled an escalating course of physical and sexual abuse, beginning with kissing during lessons and continuing in the car and flat while he was acting as guardian.
3. Vicarious liability. Applying the two-stage synthesis in Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society and the close connection test in Mohamud and Various Claimants v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc, the teacher’s functions included one-to-one instrumental teaching and pastoral responsibility. The employment gave him authority, access, proximity, trust and responsibility for the claimant’s care, created or enhanced the risk of abuse, and provided the opportunity to misuse his position. Grooming and assaults began in the teacher-pupil setting at school and formed one escalating course of conduct.
4. The fact that later assaults occurred in the teacher’s car and flat while he was acting as guardian did not break the strong causative link. The guardianship arrangement was required and enabled by the school, and dual vicarious liability was legally possible. The school was vicariously liable for all the assaults.
5. The claim succeeded on all three issues. Judgment was entered for the claimant for £45,000, with costs subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.