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 sexually abused C as alleged in the swimming baths and infirmary incidents, constituting actionable batteries. The video incident and first infirmary incident were not actionable as battery or under Wilkinson v Downton, as no enforceable duty beyond common law care was owed and no recognised psychiatric injury was caused by those acts. D2 was vicariously liable for D1's torts committed in the course of employment. Similar fact evidence from other complainants was admissible and probative, supporting the finding of D1's sexual interest in boys and the truth of C's allegations.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 166 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: C; First Defendant: D (1); Second Defendant: D (2)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Tort Claim (civil) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; damages awarded to claimant against both defendants, with D2 vicariously liable for D1's torts.
Legal Topics
Sexual Abuse, Vicarious Liability, Battery, Wilkinson V Downton Liability, Similar Fact Evidence
Tort Law Education Law Child Protection Sexual Abuse Vicarious Liability Battery Wilkinson V Downton Liability Similar Fact Evidence

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C

Claimant

D (1)

First Defendant

D (2)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Tort Claim (civil) / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that D1 deliberately sexually abused C as alleged in the swimming baths and infirmary incidents, constituting actionable batteries. The video incident and first infirmary incident were not actionable as battery or under Wilkinson v Downton, as no enforceable duty beyond common law care was owed and no recognised psychiatric injury was caused by those acts. D2 was vicariously liable for D1's torts committed in the course of employment. Similar fact evidence from other complainants was admissible and probative, supporting the finding of D1's sexual interest in boys and the truth of C's allegations.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; damages awarded to claimant against both defendants, with D2 vicariously liable for D1's torts.

Orders

  • Judgment for claimant against both defendants for battery in respect of swimming baths and second infirmary incidents.
  • Damages to be assessed for psychiatric injury and consequential loss.