THE DULL end of the legislation spectrum includes the law on limitation periods – the time within which a claim in the courts must be commenced – as controlled by the Limitation Act 1980. However, last week a ruling by the House of Lords involving assault claims for child and sexual abuse catapulted limitation periods to national attention.
The previous interpretation of the law was fairly easy to follow. If a case was brought for “negligence, nuisance or breach of duty” then there was a usual time limit of three or six years (depending on the type of damage caused). This could be extended if it could be shown, for example, that a claimant was not aware of the damage caused until after the limitation period had come to an end. Very useful for claims for diseases such as asbestosis that take time to develop. In addition, it has always been the case that the limitation period does not start to run until a person is 18. And the courts had a general discretion to extend time if they thought it equitable to do so. However, importantly the courts previously held that if a civil wrong was intentional, such as an assault (which would include rape, indecent assault and excessive force used by the police) then the Limitation Act said there was a six-year period in which to bring a claim (once adulthood has been reached) which could never be extended. And an impecunious defendant who would not have been worth suing and who came into wealth more than six years after assaulting someone was immune from suit.
However, all that has now changed. The House of Lords found that it could not be right that intentional torts such as assault were excluded from consideration for an extension of time in appropriate circumstances. The court looked at an anomalous example where, well after the six-year period had ended, a woman could sue her mother in negligence for failing to protect her from the abusive father, but could not sue the father himself for the assaults. Overruling the Court of Appeal, their Lordships allowed a number of cases which had been caught by the six-year rule to continue – including the case of the woman who wanted to sue a rapist now that he had won the lottery.
The public bodies most likely to be affected by the ruling are those where there is a possible claim for child abuse. Before last week, once a person previously in care turned 24 (six years after reaching adulthood) then a claim was barred for ever. In addition, claims for assault and false imprisonment against the police and Prison Service will not face an automatic shut-out. Now, in certain medical circumstances and/or if the court thinks it is just to do so, that period can be extended, potentially indefinitely.
Stephen Cragg is a barrister specialising in public law at Doughty Street Chambers E-mail: s.cragg@doughtystreet.co.uk