Young v Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) and another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Dyson,Sir Peter Gibson,Lord Justice Buxton |
| Judgment Date | 14 November 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWCA Civ 1534 |
| Docket Number | Case No: B3/2006/0176 and B3/2006/0177 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 14 November 2006 |
[2006] EWCA Civ 1534
Lord Justice Buxton
Lord Justice Dyson and
Sir Peter Gibson
Case No: B3/2006/0176 and B3/2006/0177
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM LEEDS COUNTY COURT
Judge Cockroft
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
(1) Mr Edward Faulks QC and Mr Nicholas Fewtrell (instructed by Messrs Hill Dickinson Llp) for the Appellant
(2) Mr N Wilkinson QC and Mr N Moss (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Home Office
Mr Stuart Brown QC (instructed by Messrs Jordans) for the Respondent
As was observed by the Law Commission (Limitation of Actions, Law Com No 270) , claims by victims of child sexual abuse pose particular problems for any limitations regime. The acts giving rise to the cause of action will, by their nature, occur when the claimant is a child. The claimant may suffer immediate physical injury as well as prolonged psychiatric problems. These problems may only become manifest, or at least be recognised as such by the victim, many years after the abuse. This creates difficulties similar to those created by latent disease.
The relevant limitation provisions are to be found in sections 11, 14 and 33 of the Limitation Act 1980. Section 11 provides that in respect of claims for personal injuries, the applicable limitation period is 3 years from the date on which the cause of action accrued or the date of knowledge (if later) of the person injured. Section 14 defines the date of knowledge for the purposes of section 11. The application of sections 14 and 33 to child sexual abuse cases was considered in detail by this court in KR and others v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Limited [2003] EWCA Civ 85, [2003] QB 1441. One of the questions that arises in these appeals is whether the reasoning of Bryn Alyn in relation to section 14(2) (date of claimant's knowledge that the injury in question was significant) can stand in the light of the subsequent House of Lords decision in Adams v Bracknell Forest BC [2004] UKHL 29, [2005] 1 AC 76.
In both of the present cases, the claimant alleges that he suffered sexual and physical abuse at the hands of an employee of the defendant and that the abuse was caused by the defendant's breach of the duty of care owed to the claimant. Proceedings were issued on 11 April 2003. On the trial of a preliminary issue, Judge Cockroft held that the claimant's date of knowledge as defined by section 14 was within 3 years of 11 April 2003. He gave permission to the defendants to appeal because (i) he considered that the issues raised were difficult, (ii) this court should consider giving more guidance than had been given in Bryn Alyn and (iii) Bryn Alyn might need to be revisited in the light of the subsequent decision in Adams.
Although it was unnecessary for him to do so, the judge considered whether, if he were wrong on the section 14 issue, he should extend time under section 33. He decided that he would not have extended time. He refused to grant the claimant permission to appeal on this point. But Smith LJ granted permission on the grounds that the judge had exercised his discretion on a hypothetical basis and that, if this court decided that he had reached the wrong conclusion on the section 14 issue, it should have the opportunity to review the judge's decision on the section 33 issue.
The facts
The claimant was born on 18 June 1959. He was taken into care on 15 September 1961 suffering from neglect and malnutrition. Both his parents were subsequently convicted of wilful neglect and sentenced to substantial terms of imprisonment. The claimant was passed from pillar to post during his childhood. He believes that he resided in no fewer than about 50 different institutions and homes.
6. Between October 1974 and July 1976, he was resident at the second defendant's school, St Camillus in Tadcaster, York. He alleges that, whilst there, he was the victim of repeated physical assaults and three sexual assaults all committed by James Littlewood, a member of staff. On the first occasion, which also involved two head boys, he was forced to touch the erect penis, masturbate and perform oral sex until ejaculation on Littlewood and the two boys. The second incident involved being forced to perform oral sex on Littlewood. On the third occasion, he alleges that he was touched by Littlewood, who then removed the claimant's boiler suit and masturbated himself to ejaculation over the claimant's bare bottom.
He left St Camillus's on 28 June 1976 when he was just 17 years of age. He then committed an offence of dishonesty for which he was sentenced to 3 months' detention at Medomsley detention centre, Consett, County Durham. This is a centre which at the time was operated by the third defendant. He was there subjected to sadistic sexual abuse of a quite different order from that which he had previously experienced. The perpetrator was Neville Husband, an officer who was in charge of the kitchen. The abuse is described at para 14 of the amended particulars of claim in these terms:
"The Claimant was sexually abused by Neville Husband a senior officer in charge of the kitchen area. The Claimant was invited to work in the kitchen area. At the start of each shift he was required to change into his kitchen whites. This required the Claimant to remove all clothing including, at Husband's insistence, his underwear.
The abuse was progressive. Whist performing kitchen tasks Husband approached the Claimant. Initially he approached him from behind and would rub himself, in particular his penis, against the Claimant's bottom. This progressed to Husband touching the Claimant's bottom and genital area over his clothing.
Within weeks the abuse progressed further. Husband would try to separate the Claimant from other prisoners. The Claimant would be taken to the dry storeroom or the first aid room. In the dry storeroom the Claimant would be required to stand against the wall. His trousers would be removed. In the majority of instances Husband would perform oral sex on the Claimant.
With the passage of time the abuse became more brutal and aggressive. Husband liked to tie the Claimant around the neck to the shelving, in the form of a ligature. This would tighten with movement until the Claimant was close to unconsciousness. On other occasions the Claimant would be blindfolded and his hands and/or feet would be tied.
The Claimant was further sexually assaulted in the first aid room. The Claimant recalls being required to get onto the bed and position himself on his hands and knees. The Claimant recalls Husband pushing his erect penis between his legs from both the front and from behind stimulating sex. Further, on occasions Husband tried to bugger the Claimant and achieved partial penetration. Husband further digitally penetrated the Claimant's anus.
The Claimant recalls an incident when he was taken out of the Detention Centre to what he believed was Prison accommodation and probably Husband's home. He was blindfolded. His clothing was removed. He was required to kneel on the stairs and put himself in various positions whilst Husband took photographs of him.
The Claimant complied with the abuse. He saw Husband as all-powerful. Husband threatened him. The Claimant believed that he would be subjected to a hanging if he reported the abuse."
He was released from Medomsley on 17 June 1977, the day before his 18 th birthday. He told the judge that at the time of his release, he was "shocked, dizzy, spinning and disorientated". He had not had time to consider how the abuse had affected him. He was more concerned about survival. He did not talk about it to anyone, partly out of pride. As he put it to the judge, he succeeded in "putting his memories in a box, with a tightly sealed lid, in an attic". The experts all agreed that by his own account the claimant had suffered post traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD") . Mr Godsi, the claimant's expert (a consultant clinical psychologist with extensive experience of victims of sexual abuse) , said that it was a complex PTSD, which was at its height during the first three years after the claimant was discharged from Medomsley and continued, at a greatly reduced level, until it was rekindled in 1996 as a result of a chance encounter with Neville Husband.
As the judge put it, the years 1980 to 1996 were good ones for the claimant. He made satisfactory long-term heterosexual relationships. He was very successful in forming and running various businesses.
He did not consult a doctor or a solicitor about the consequences of the sexual abuse. In January 1986, he requested to see his Social Services file. On interview, he was described as "a very presentable, articulate young man who appears to have achieved a considerable amount of maturity since his discharge from care". According to the note of interview, he was writing a book on his experiences. He was not motivated by a desire for revenge, but wanted to check why certain decisions had been made about his placements and so on.
In December 1996, he was in the process of selling his security business which was achieving an annual turnover of more than £1 million. He had a settled relationship with a girlfriend. On the evening of 23 December, he was walking in the centre of York when he slipped on some snow and by an extraordinary mischance collided with Neville Husband.
This meeting had a dramatic effect on the claimant. The judge described him until then as having "assumed a macho...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jonathan Carl Khairule v North West Strategic Health Authority
...simple formula to cover every case that might occur. 54 Subsequently, in Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) and The Home Office v. Young [2006] EWCA Civ 1534, the Court of Appeal were concerned with limitation in the context of claims brought by adult victims of child sexual abuse. At paragra......
-
R (C) v Middlesbrough Council; A v Hoare and other appeals
...Carswell Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood HOUSE OF LORDS SESSION 2007-08 on appeal from: [2006] EWCA Civ 395 [2006] EWCA Civ 1746 [2006] EWCA Civ 1534 OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE A: Alan Newman QC Paul Spencer (Instructed by DLA Piper UK LLP) C: Elizabeth-Anne......
-
A Mce V. The Reverend Joseph Hendron And Others
...answer to these questions was in 1999. In connection with this submission, reliance was placed on Catholic Care and Another v Young [2006] E.W.C.A. Civ. 1534. Senior counsel relied particularly on paragraphs 30, 34, 46 and 49. He contended that what had been said in that case was consistent......
-
A.s. Or B.+d.m.+j.p. Or W. V. Sister Bernard Mary Murray And Others+sister Bernard Mary Murray And Others+sister Bernard Mary Murray And Others
...reservations expressed by a differently constituted bench of the Court of Appeal in Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) & Anor v Young [2006] EWCA Civ. 1534, [2007] 1 All ER 895, to which we were also referred. We would also add that very shortly after the hearing of these reclaiming motions, ......
-
Mixed messages on sexual assault and the statute of limitations: Stingel v. Clark, the Ipp 'reforms' and an argument for change.
...Borough Council [2006] 1 WLR 2320; H v Suffolk County Council [2006] 1 WLR 2320; Young v South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council [2007] QB 932. (69) A v Hoare [2008] 2All ER 1, 12-13 (Lord (70) Specifically, this interpretation gives plaintiffs alleging intentional trespass access to th......