AB & Ors v The Nugent Care Society (Formerly Catholic Social Services (Liverpool))

AB & Ors v The Nugent Care Society (Formerly Catholic Social Services (Liverpool))

The claims of JM and JB are statute-barred as both had actual and constructive knowledge of significant injury and the relevant facts well before the limitation period expired, and it is not equitable to disapply the limitation period under Section 33 due to the prejudice to the defendants from delay. PL's claim is allowed to proceed as the strength of the case on liability and the particular circumstances justify equitable relief under Section 33.

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
Civil (group Litigation) / Judgment on Preliminary Issue of Limitation
Outcome
Claims of JM and JB dismissed as statute-barred; PL's claim allowed to proceed.
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods, Sexual Abuse Claims, Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Equitable Relief Under Limitation Statutes
Tort Law Limitation Law Personal Injury Limitation Periods Sexual Abuse Claims Negligence Vicarious Liability Equitable Relief Under Limitation Statutes

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 3 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

Civil (group Litigation) / Judgment on Preliminary Issue of Limitation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims are statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether claimants had the requisite 'date of knowledge' under Section 14
  3. 3 Whether it is equitable to allow the actions to proceed under Section 33

Ratio Decidendi

The claims of JM and JB are statute-barred as both had actual and constructive knowledge of significant injury and the relevant facts well before the limitation period expired, and it is not equitable to disapply the limitation period under Section 33 due to the prejudice to the defendants from delay. PL's claim is allowed to proceed as the strength of the case on liability and the particular circumstances justify equitable relief under Section 33.

Court Disposition

Claims of JM and JB dismissed as statute-barred; PL's claim allowed to proceed.

Orders

  • Judgment for defendants in JM and JB's claims; PL's action to continue.