Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
View all articles
Authors

LOCAL AUTHORITY/NEGLIGENCE: A v Hoare; H v Suffolk County Council; X and Y v Wandsworth London Borough Council [2006] EWCA Civ 395

Sep 29, 2018, 17:26 PM
Slug : a-v-hoare-h-v-suffolk-county-council-x-and-y-v-wandsworth-london-borough-council-2006-ewca-civ-395
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 5, 2006, 11:26 AM
Article ID : 86379

(Court of Appeal; Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Brooke and Arden LJJ; 12 April 2006) [2006] FLR (forthcoming)

The plaintiffs claimed damages in negligence in relation to attempted sexual abuse and rape. The respondents argued that the claims were out of time, being subject to the fixed 6-year limitation period from the date of assault or from the claimants' majority if later which applied to claims arising out of intentional sexual assaults.

The Human Rights Act 1998 could not be used retrospectively to prevent a defence based on limitation. It was not viable to argue that local authorities were vicariously responsible for the teachers' breach of duty in failing to report their own misconduct, in order to take advantage of the extendable 3-year limitation period applicable to actions for breach of duty. The present law suffered from very serious deficiencies and incoherencies; although the Court of Appeal could not address these, the House of Lords might be able to provide a remedy. The limitation period applied and the appeals had to be dismissed.

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