Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
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