AB & Ors v The Nugent Care Society (Formerly Catholic Social Services (Liverpool)) [2006] EWHC 2986 (QB) (23 November 2006)

AB & Ors v The Nugent Care Society (Formerly Catholic Social Services (Liverpool)) [2006] EWHC 2986 (QB) (23 November 2006)

Claimants JM and JB failed to establish a 'date of knowledge' within three years prior to proceedings and are not entitled to equitable relief under s.33 due to prejudice to the defendants and lack of cogency in evidence. Claimant PL failed on s.14 but is granted equitable relief under s.33 due to the headmaster's direct involvement, strong liability case, and absence of causation issue.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 2986 (QB)
Parties
Claimants: A. B. and Others; Defendants: The Nugent Care Society (formerly Catholic Social Services (Liverpool))
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Group Litigation (sample Cases) / Interlocutory Ruling on Limitation and Continuation of Actions
Outcome
Actions by JM and JB dismissed on limitation grounds; PL's action allowed to proceed under s.33.
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Historic Sexual Abuse, Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Equitable Relief
Tort Personal Injury Limitation Limitation of Actions Historic Sexual Abuse Negligence Vicarious Liability Equitable Relief

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. B. and Others

Claimants

The Nugent Care Society (formerly Catholic Social Services (Liverpool))

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Group Litigation (sample Cases) / Interlocutory Ruling on Limitation and Continuation of Actions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants' actions are barred by limitation under the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether claimants have a 'date of knowledge' within three years of commencing proceedings under s.14
  3. 3 Whether it is equitable to allow actions to proceed under s.33

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants JM and JB failed to establish a 'date of knowledge' within three years prior to proceedings and are not entitled to equitable relief under s.33 due to prejudice to the defendants and lack of cogency in evidence. Claimant PL failed on s.14 but is granted equitable relief under s.33 due to the headmaster's direct involvement, strong liability case, and absence of causation issue.

Court Disposition

Actions by JM and JB dismissed on limitation grounds; PL's action allowed to proceed under s.33.

Orders

  • Judgment for defendants in JM and JB cases; PL's action to continue; direction that limitation provisions of s.11 do not apply to PL's action.