BXB v Watch Tower And Bible Tract Society of Pennsylvannia & Anor (Rev 1)

BXB v Watch Tower And Bible Tract Society of Pennsylvannia & Anor (Rev 1)

The Defendants are vicariously liable for the rape of Mrs B by Mark Sewell because the relationship between the congregation and its elders is sufficiently akin to employment, and the authority and power conferred by the Defendants created or significantly enhanced the risk of abuse. The rape was closely connected to Mark Sewell’s position as elder, and the psychiatric injuries suffered by Mrs B were attributable to the rape. It is equitable to extend time under s.33 of the Limitation Act 1980. Claims for special damages, including loss of earnings, fail due to lack of evidence.

Parties
Claimant: BXB; First Defendant: Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society of Pennsylvannia; Second Defendant: Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant
Legal Topics
Sexual Assault, Vicarious Liability, Negligence, Limitation Period, Duty of Care, Religious Doctrine, Psychiatric Injury, Aggravated Damages
Tort Limitation Personal Injury Vicarious Liability Sexual Assault Negligence Limitation Period Duty of Care +3 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 33 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BXB

Claimant

Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society of Pennsylvannia

First Defendant

Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should time be extended under s. 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 for vicarious liability and investigation claims?
  2. 2 Are the Defendants vicariously liable for the rape of Mrs B by Mark Sewell?
  3. 3 Did the Defendants owe Mrs B a duty of care in the conduct of the investigation?

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants are vicariously liable for the rape of Mrs B by Mark Sewell because the relationship between the congregation and its elders is sufficiently akin to employment, and the authority and power conferred by the Defendants created or significantly enhanced the risk of abuse. The rape was closely connected to Mark Sewell’s position as elder, and the psychiatric injuries suffered by Mrs B were attributable to the rape. It is equitable to extend time under s.33 of the Limitation Act 1980. Claims for special damages, including loss of earnings, fail due to lack of evidence.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant

Orders

  • Time extended under s.33 Limitation Act 1980 for both claims
  • Defendants held vicariously liable for rape