Since 1993, the case of Stubbings v Webb and another has been accepted as the correct position regarding the limitation date in relation to claims for personal injury arising from sexual abuse and assault.
However, the case of A v Hoare and others has now overruled this case, which means that more victims can now have access to justice and bring a personal injury claim against their abusers.
The default position on limitation is contained in section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980: the period of limitation for an action in tort is six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. However, section 11 of the Act provides a special time limit for actions in respect of personal injuries. It states that in relation to an action for damages for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty where the Claimant is claiming damages for personal injury, the period applicable is three years from the date on which the cause of action accrued or the date of knowledge (if this is later) of the person injured. Section 14 goes on to establish what ‘the date of knowledge’ is.
In Stubbings v Webb, the Claimant tried to claim damages for the mental injury she suffered as a result of sexual abuse and rape when she was a child. The Claimant (now an adult) argued that although she knew what had happened to her at the time, she only realised the causal link between the abuse and her psychiatric problems in adult life. She therefore sought to rely on section 11 and 14 to bring a claim on the basis that she had only established the requisite knowledge needed to bring a claim as an adult and was within the 3-year period for bringing a claim.
The House of Lords rejected this argument on the basis that section 11 and 14 did not apply to a cause of action based on rape or indecent assault. The Claimant’s action was therefore time-barred.
This created an anomaly between negligence cases where the Court could use the Limitation Act to extend the period for issuing a claim but not in a case of deliberate assault.
In A v Hoare and others, the Claimants also argued that they fell under section 11 and so could bring a claim. They also brought section 33 to the Court’s attention, which gives the Court discretion to extend the limitation period when it appears equitable to do so. The lower courts followed Stubbings v Webb and held that the claims were statute barred. The Claimants appealed.
The House of Lords overruled Stubbings v Webb and held that actions for damages for personal injury for sexual abuse and assault fell within section 11. The Court took the view that it could not have been Parliament’s intention that those who had been intentionally injured were to be excluded from sections 11, 14 and 33.
The Court went on to clarify the test in section 14 for determining the date of knowledge of the cause of action by the Claimant. The test is whether a Claimant could reasonably have considered the injury they suffered as being sufficiently serious to justify proceedings. The test is not whether the Claimant would have seen this, which will protect those such as the Claimant in Stubbings v Webb, where she did not realise the link between her abuse and her injury until she was an adult.
This decision recognises that it is not appropriate or realistic for Claimants who have suffered sexual abuse or assault to be restricted to bring a claim within 6 years when the effects and realisation of the nature of their injury may not present themselves to the Claimant for many years.
If you have been affected by any of the issues in this article or wish to bring or defend a personal injury claim then please contact our team on 01603 598000 or email injury@steeleslaw.co.uk.