R v AMF & Anor
[2024] EWCA Crim 899
TA v Westminster City Council & Anor
17 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 3267 (KB)
High Court
A man sued two councils for abuse he suffered as a child, decades ago. The councils said it was too late to defend the case because key evidence and witnesses were gone. The judge agreed, even though the man had good reasons for the delay, because it was impossible to have a fair trial. The lawsuit was dismissed.
Key Facts
- •Two claims (0011 and 0034) of common law negligence against London Borough of Lambeth and Westminster City Council for alleged abuse suffered by the claimant (TA) between 1972 and 1981.
- •Claim 0034 alleges negligence in placing the claimant with his abusive mother in 1972-1973.
- •Claim 0011 alleges negligence in placing the claimant at Fairways Children's Home (1973-1981), where he was allegedly abused by Mr. Tubbs.
- •Claims brought over 36 and 37 years after the limitation period expired.
- •Key issue: whether the court should disapply the limitation period under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980.
- •Claimant argues psychiatric disability and suppressed memories as reasons for delay.
- •Defendants argue significant prejudice due to witness unavailability and missing evidence.
Legal Principles
Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 allows the court to disapply the limitation period if it is equitable, considering prejudice to both plaintiff and defendant.
Limitation Act 1980, section 33
The test under section 33 is a balance of prejudice; the claimant must show their prejudice outweighs the defendant's.
Carroll v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester [2017] EWCA Civ 1992
The purpose of limitation statutes is to protect defendants from stale claims where evidence is lost or witnesses unavailable.
Robinson v St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council [2002] EWCA Civ 1099
A fair trial is crucial; if it's impossible, it's unlikely to be equitable to expect the defendant to meet the claim.
E v E [2015] EWCA Civ 287
Delay caused by claimant's advisors or psychiatric disability may be considered reasonable.
Various cases cited in section 21
Outcomes
The court refused to disapply the limitation period.
The defendants suffered significant prejudice due to the unavailability of key witnesses and missing evidence, rendering a fair trial impossible. The claimant's reasons for delay, while understandable, were not sufficient to outweigh this prejudice. The claimant's alleged psychiatric disability was not adequately supported by medical evidence.