Round up for 2009 on Child Abuse Compensation Claims

CASELAW

In New Zealand, the Court of Appeal decided that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Wellington was not
vicariously liable for abuse committed by foster carers.

This case appears to follow the rationale in the Canadian cases of MB v British Columbia [2003] 2 SCR 477 and KLB v British Columbia [2003] 2 SCR 403.

See my article published in the Solicitors Journal 21st July 2009 on vicarious liability for foster carers.
The European Court of Human Rights found that a man accused of child abuse should have had the opportunity to challenge evidence made against him by a child, although they also stressed that in child abuse cases, the State was entitled to protect children giving evidence in such cases.

There was bad news for the Claimants in the case of

X and Y v the London Borough of Hounslow [2008] EWHC 1168 as the Court of Appeal found that there was no duty of care on the local authority.

In Bridge v Coventry City Council [2009] EWCA Civ 273, the Court of Appeal refused to overturn the trial judge’s findings on Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, which went in favour of the Claimant.

In Maga v Trustees of the Birmingham of the Roman Catholic Church[2009] EWHC 780, Mr Justice Jack decided that the church was not vicariously liable for abuse perpetrated by a priest, because his victim did not have a sufficiently close association with him. The learned judge also held that it would not be fair to impose a duty of care on the church.

The House of Lords set firm limits on the issue of duty of care and breach of human rights in the case of Mitchell and Another v Glasgow City Council [2009] UKHL 11 where it was alleged that a housing authority had failed to protect one of its tenants from another.

There was better news in Raggett v The Society of Jesus Trust and Others [2009] EWHC 909 where Justice Swift exercised discretion under Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 so as to allow a claim made in relation to abuse by a Catholic priest at a school between 1969 and 1976.

Bolt Burdon Kemp achieved a good result in NXS v London Borough of Camden [2009] EWHC 1786 where again Justice Swift found for a Claimant who alleged failure to take into care in the 70′s and 80′s. She was awarded judgment in the sum of £60,000.

There was a more mixed result in AB and Others v Nugent Care Society; GR v Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council [2009] EWCA Civ 827 where the Court of Appeal considered limitation findings at first instance in relation to several Claimants.

The long running case of B v Reading Borough Council and Others [2009] EWHC 998 came before Mr Justice McKay, who decided that the claims for misfeasance in public office and conspiracy to injure must fail. This was a case where it was alleged by a father that his daughter had been wrongly taken away from him and he had been wrongly accused of abusing her. Thompson v Archbishop of Birmingham [2009] EWCA Civ 115 provided much needed guidance on the difficult issue of trying limitation by way of preliminary hearing.

Finally the tragic case of Webster v Norfolk County Council [2009] EWCA Civ 59 provides another example of how expert evidence in family cases can lead to the wrong result. The Court of Appeal refused to overturn adoption orders made in relation to children taken into care as a result of that evidence. See my article written with Professor Penny Hedgeland published in the Expert Witness Summer Supplement 2009.

STATUTES

APPRENTICESHIPS, SKILLS AND LEARNING ACT 2009 – provides for the establishment of Children’s Trust Boards and new duties for Local Safeguarding Children’s Boards.

AUTISM ACT 2009 – places a duty on the government to prepare and publish an autism strategy by 1 April 2010.

CORONERS AND JUSTICE ACT 2009 – creates a new offence in England and Wales of possession of a prohibited image of a child.

POLICING AND CRIME ACT 2003 – creates new offence to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 of paying for the sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force. Also renames the Independent Barring Board to the Independent Safeguarding Authority.The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 is amended.