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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
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