C v D [2006] EWHC 166 (QB) (23 February 2006)

C v D [2006] EWHC 166 (QB) (23 February 2006)

The Court found, on the balance of probabilities, that D1 deliberately touched C's genitals in the swimming baths changing room and in the infirmary, constituting actionable battery. The similar fact evidence (admitted and proved incidents with other pupils) was probative of D1's sexual interest in boys and supported C's allegations. D2, as employer, was vicariously liable for D1's torts. The videoing and first infirmary incidents were not actionable as battery or assault, and no enforceable duty existed beyond common law. No claim in negligence was pleaded.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 166
Parties
Claimant: C; First Defendant: D1; Second Defendant: D2
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Tort Claim for Damages (sexual Abuse, Battery, Psychiatric Injury) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim for battery and vicarious liability succeeded against D1 and D2. Claim for videoing and first infirmary incidents dismissed.
Legal Topics
Battery, Vicarious Liability, Psychiatric Injury, Wilkinson V Downtown, Civil Evidence Act 1995, Sexual Abuse, Duty of Care
Tort Law Education Law Child Protection Battery Vicarious Liability Psychiatric Injury Wilkinson V Downtown Civil Evidence Act 1995 +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C

Claimant

D1

First Defendant

D2

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Tort Claim for Damages (sexual Abuse, Battery, Psychiatric Injury) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether D1 committed actionable battery against C by sexual abuse
  2. 2 Whether D2 is vicariously liable for D1's torts
  3. 3 Whether videoing incident and first infirmary incident are actionable wrongs

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found, on the balance of probabilities, that D1 deliberately touched C's genitals in the swimming baths changing room and in the infirmary, constituting actionable battery. The similar fact evidence (admitted and proved incidents with other pupils) was probative of D1's sexual interest in boys and supported C's allegations. D2, as employer, was vicariously liable for D1's torts. The videoing and first infirmary incidents were not actionable as battery or assault, and no enforceable duty existed beyond common law. No claim in negligence was pleaded.

Court Disposition

Claim for battery and vicarious liability succeeded against D1 and D2. Claim for videoing and first infirmary incidents dismissed.

Orders

  • Damages awarded to C for battery and psychiatric injury against D1 and D2
  • Claim for videoing and first infirmary incidents dismissed