Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles
Authors

NEGLIGENCE/SEXUAL ABUSE: A v Hoare & Others [2008] UKHL 6

Sep 29, 2018, 17:18 PM
Slug : a-v-hoare-and-others-2008-ukhl-6
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 4, 2008, 09:58 AM
Article ID : 89099

(House of Lords; Lord Hoffmann, Lord Walker of Gestinghope, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood; 30 January 2008)

Overruling Stubbings v Webb [1993] AC 498, which had created anomalies, the Lords held that Limitation Act 1975, s 11 did apply to a case of deliberate assault, including acts of indecent assault; therefore, in personal injury claims for damages arising out of sexual assaults and sexual abuse, the relevant limitation period was 3 years from the date of knowledge, with a judicial discretion to extend that period when it appeared that it would be equitable to do so. The appeal also raised the meaning of 'significant' injury in s 14(2), for the purposes of identifying the date of knowledge. The test in s 14(2) was an entirely impersonal standard; the question was not whether the claimant himself would have considered the injury sufficiently serious to justify proceedings, but whether the claimant would 'reasonably' have done so. The effect of the claimant's injuries upon what he could reasonably have been expected to do was irrelevant; the test was external to the claimant. The question whether the actual claimant, taking into account his psychological state in consequence of the injury, could reasonably have been expected to institute proceedings, was taken into account by the court when considering whether to exercise the discretion to extend the limitation period under s 33 of the Act.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from