Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) & Anor v Young

Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) & Anor v Young

The claimant knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that he had suffered significant injury attributable to the defendants' acts or omissions shortly after December 1996, more than three years before issuing proceedings. The claim is therefore time-barred under section 11 of the Limitation Act 1980. The judge's refusal to exercise discretion under section 33 to allow the claim to proceed was correct, as a fair trial was no longer possible.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds); Appellant/defendant: The Home Office; Respondent/claimant: Kevin Raymond Young
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Leeds County Court
Outcome
appeal allowed (on section 14); appeal dismissed (on section 33); claim time-barred
Legal Topics
Child Sexual Abuse, Limitation Period, Date of Knowledge, Section 14 Limitation Act 1980, Section 33 Limitation Act 1980, Psychiatric Injury, Objective Vs Subjective Test
Tort Limitation of Actions Personal Injury Child Sexual Abuse Limitation Period Date of Knowledge Section 14 Limitation Act 1980 Section 33 Limitation Act 1980 +2 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds)

Appellant/defendant

The Home Office

Appellant/defendant

Kevin Raymond Young

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Leeds County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When did the claimant acquire knowledge of significant injury for limitation purposes under section 14 of the Limitation Act 1980?
  2. 2 Should the court exercise its discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to allow the claim to proceed out of time?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that he had suffered significant injury attributable to the defendants' acts or omissions shortly after December 1996, more than three years before issuing proceedings. The claim is therefore time-barred under section 11 of the Limitation Act 1980. The judge's refusal to exercise discretion under section 33 to allow the claim to proceed was correct, as a fair trial was no longer possible.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed (on section 14); appeal dismissed (on section 33); claim time-barred

Orders

  • Proceedings barred by section 11 of the Limitation Act 1980
  • No extension of time under section 33; claim dismissed