Raggett v The Society of Jesus Trust 1929 for Roman Catholic Purposes & Anor

Raggett v The Society of Jesus Trust 1929 for Roman Catholic Purposes & Anor

The claimant was the victim of sustained sexual abuse by Father Spencer. Although the claim was issued outside the primary limitation period, the court found it equitable to allow the action to proceed, given the claimant's suppression of memories and emotions, the overwhelming supporting evidence, and the lack of material prejudice to the defendants' ability to defend liability.

Parties
Claimant: Patrick Raggett; First Defendant: The Society of Jesus Trust 1929 for Roman Catholic Purposes; Second Defendant: The Governors of Preston Catholic College
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim / Judgment on Liability and Limitation
Outcome
Claim allowed to proceed despite limitation
Legal Topics
Sexual Abuse, Vicarious Liability, Limitation Period, Equitable Discretion
Tort Personal Injury Limitation Sexual Abuse Vicarious Liability Limitation Period Equitable Discretion

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Raggett

Claimant

The Society of Jesus Trust 1929 for Roman Catholic Purposes

First Defendant

The Governors of Preston Catholic College

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim / Judgment on Liability and Limitation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did sexual abuse occur?
  2. 2 Was the claim issued beyond the primary limitation period?
  3. 3 Should the limitation period be disapplied under equitable discretion?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was the victim of sustained sexual abuse by Father Spencer. Although the claim was issued outside the primary limitation period, the court found it equitable to allow the action to proceed, given the claimant's suppression of memories and emotions, the overwhelming supporting evidence, and the lack of material prejudice to the defendants' ability to defend liability.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed to proceed despite limitation

Orders

  • The provisions of section 11 Limitation Act 1980 shall not apply to this action.
  • Issues of causation and quantum to be determined at a later stage.