Kevin Raymond Young v Catholic Care And The Home Office 2005

FACTS:-

The Claimant sought damages for personal injury caused by physical and sexual abuse at the following institutions over the following periods:-

• April 1969 to March 1974 – St Thomas Moore school in South Devon (owned by the First Defendant)
• October 1974 to July 1976 – St Camillus in Tadcaster, York
• April 1977 to July 1977 – Medomsley Detention Centre, Consett, County Durham owned by the Third Defendant

The allegations against the First Defendant had been abandoned leaving only the claims against the Second and Third Defendants. Those claims were based on negligent in the management of the above institutions.

The Claimant was born on the 18th June 1959 and taken into care on the 15th September 1961, suffering from neglect. He reached the age of 18 on the 17th June 1977 and issued proceedings for personal injury damages originally against the three Defendants on the 11th April 2003 – twenty five years and ten months later and long after primary limitation had expired on the 18th June 1980.

The Defendants pleaded that the Claimant was out of time to bring his claim. The issue for the court was whether the Claimant could rely on sections 14 and/or 33 of the Limitation Act.

HELD:-

His Honour Judge Cockcroft considered the Claimant’s history since leaving care and attaining the age of 18. The judge held that, in the immediate years following 1977 when the Claimant left Medomsley Detention Centre, whatever symptoms the Claimant had fell below the level of clinical significance. For a period of sixteen years from 1980 the Claimant’s life improved markedly. He had satisfactory long term heterosexual relationships and was very successful in forming and running various businesses.

In January 1986, the Claimant requested to see his Social Services file wanting to check the decision that had been made on his placements. However there were no referrals or disclosures to any doctor or solicitor except possibly to a business partner, although this was very vague.

On the 23rd December 1996, the Claimant bumped into one of his abusers. At this point he suffered a serious mental deterioration. In December 1999 he was contacted by the police in relation to St Camillus and was interviewed in December 2000. He made a statement on the 11th January 2001 and another on the 6th November 2001. He was advised by the police to consult solicitors.

He did see solicitors on the 21st September 2001, but they could not arrange insurance. He was passed to another firm of solicitors. An attendance note from that firm dated 28th January 2002 stated that the Claimant “wants it through Courts.” He was advised to await the outcome of the criminal proceedings. Later he approached another firm of solicitors, Jordans.

On the 2nd May 2002 one of his abusers at St Camillus’ was convicted of abuse, and on the 14th February 2003 his abuser at Medomsley Detention Centre was also convicted. Proceedings were issued by his new solicitors, Jordans on the 11th April 2003.

The judge said that it was incumbent on the Claimant to prove a later date of actual knowledge for the purposes of section 14 of the Limitation Act. In June 1977 and for three or so years thereafter, it seemed wholly unrealistic to hold that time began to run by reason of the Claimant’s disability. So time did not run at any stage up to 1996. There was then the meeting with his abuser in December 1996. The Claimant had suffered an extreme reaction according to the psychiatric evidence, so the reasons for not disclosing which operating on his leaving Medomsley Detention Centre were operative again after December 1996. The “quality of reasonable curiosity” spoken of by Lord Hoffman in the case of Adams v. Bracknell Forest Borough Council [2004] UKHL 29 and remained so until it was first stimulated by the police investigations, which was less than three years before the issue of proceedings. So there would be judgement for the Claimant on the first limitation issue.

The judge said that a consideration of section 33 was not strictly necessary. However he considered the various factors and came to the conclusion that the Claimant would not have discharged the heavy burden of section 33.

The judge had to stand back and ask, in the light of all the circumstances of the case whether a fair trial can now be held. The real issue in this trial was that of systemic negligence on the part of the Defendants. The judge considered in detail the available evidence.

There had been no monitoring of the relevant criminal trials, nor any transcript of the evidence of the trial of one of the abusers, who had denied the allegations and been given leave to appeal his convictions. The parties had made energetic efforts to deal with the availability of evidence. One of the Defendants had produced a witness statement dealing with this issue and there was a schedule of potential witnesses in the trial bundle. Some of the documentation had been destroyed.  In the case of Medomsley Detention Centre, there did not appear to be any relevant records.

The judge also considered the length and the reasons for the Claimant’s delay.He had to consider the totality of the delay, not merely that which followed the later date of knowledge.

There was also the conduct of the Defendants. They had spared no time in denying liability and in taking the limitation defence, so they have never contributed to any delay.

The next factor was the duration of any disability on the part of the Claimant. At no time did he lack mental capacity in the strict sense, but the judge had already found that in terms of when it was appropriate to take action he was under a disability until 2001 (the date when the judge found “date of knowledge”.)

There was then the extent to which the Claimant acted promptly once he had acquired knowledge. The judge pointed out that there was a further delay up to September 2001 before the Claimant first saw solicitors and a further delay of two and a half years after that before proceedings were commenced. Therefore the Claimant did not come to section 33 with “entirely clean hands”. The final consideration – the steps taken to obtain legal and medical advice overlapped with this last factor.

On balance the factors in the checklist were either neutral or favourable to the Defendants. It did not follow from the fact that criminal trials had already been held that a fair trial was possible. The judge would not have overridden the time limit under section 33, however there would still be judgment on the section 14 issue.

(This case was appealed to the Court of Appeal and the decision can be seen in (1) Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) (2) The Home Office versus Kevin Raymond Young [2006] EWCA Civ 1534.