JXH v The Vicar, Parochial Church Council and Churchwardens of the Parish Church of Holcombe Rogus
[2023] EWHC 3221 (KB)
LBA v Governors of St Hugh of Lincoln RC Primary School & Anor
25 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1502 (KB)
High Court
A man sued a bishop for sexual abuse, settling for £35,000. He then sued the school where some of the abuse happened. The school tried to get the second case thrown out, saying the first settlement covered everything. The judge disagreed, saying the settlement only covered the abuse that happened outside school hours. The school abuse claim can go ahead.
Key Facts
- •Claimant was sexually abused by a priest, Father O'Reilly, between 1993-1995.
- •Abuse occurred both during school hours ('school abuse') and at weekends ('weekend abuse').
- •Claimant initially sued the Bishop of Salford (vicarious liability) and received £35,000 in a Consent Order.
- •Claimant then sued the school governors and the council (negligence) for the 'school abuse'.
- •Defendants sought to strike out the claim, arguing it was an abuse of process due to the prior settlement.
- •The Consent Order with the Bishop of Salford did not specify the exact nature of the abuse for which compensation was given.
Legal Principles
A satisfied judgment against one tortfeasor bars claims against other tortfeasors liable for the same damage.
Halsbury’s Laws at 97A.48; Jameson v CEGB (1999) 2 WLR 141; Heaton v AXA (2002) 2 WLR 1081
A Consent Order, like a judgment, bars subsequent claims for the same damage against other tortfeasors.
Vanden Recycling v Tumulty (2017) EWCA Civ (2017) CP Rep 33
An application to strike out a statement of case should only be granted if the court is certain the claim is bound to fail.
CPR 3.4(2)(a); Hughes v Colin Richards & Co [2004] EWCA Civ 266
Outcomes
The Defendants' application to strike out the claim was dismissed.
The court found that the Defendants and the Bishop of Salford were arguably liable for different damage (school abuse vs. weekend abuse). The Consent Order only settled the claim against the Bishop for his vicarious liability, not the negligence claim against the school. The court considered that it was not its role to determine exactly which damage was compensated for, leaving that to the trial judge.