A V WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY[2015] EWHC 1722 (QB)
FACTS:-
The Claimant was sexually abused by one Peter Stewart (now deceased) between 1989 and 1994 when she was aged between 4 and 9. He was a ministerial servant in the Jehovah’s Witnesses and was subsequently convicted of abusing another child and a young female relative. Quantum had been agreed subject to liability. There were multiple Defendants but it was also agreed that if the second and/or third Defendants were liable, then the First Defendants would satisfy the judgment. The Claimant alleged that the Defendants were vicariously liable for the actions of Peter Stewart, and secondly that one of the sets of elders involved failed to take reasonable steps to protect the Claimant from him, once they knew that he had assaulted another child in the congregation in 1990. Consequently the Defendants were vicariously liable for that mistake.
JUDGMENT:-
Mr Justice Globe said that there were four issues to be determined:-
Globe J considered the structure and governance of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Within each congregation, there were elders, ministerial servants and members of the congregation. The church as a whole had a system for the investigation and exclusion of members who were guilty of any “sin.”
In relation to section 14, Globe J said that it was the Claimant’s case that she had only had the requisite knowledge to bring her claim when she read what had happened in 1990. This happened in March 2014 following service of the Defendants’ witness statements. There was a conflict of evidence in relation to precisely what warnings had been issued to the Claimant’s mother in 1990. Globe J preferred the evidence of the Claimant’s mother who denied any warning being given. The Claimant herself said that she had actually questioned a church elder about Mr Stewart in 2002, having heard her parents discuss it. The elder had apparently denied any knowledge of allegations against Peter Stewart, and a similar denial was made by another elder in 2006. Globe J considered section 14(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 and referred to the following cases:-
In the judgement of Globe J, the Claimant’s belief was not held with sufficient confidence to justify embarking on the preliminaries to the issue of proceedings. The belief that she had was no more than a mere suspicion. Consequently the Claimant did not have “knowledge” for the purposes of section 14 until March 2014 in relation to her safeguarding claim.
In relation to section 33, Globe J went over the terms of the section and referred to the following cases:-
· Donovan v Gwentoys [1990] 1 WLR 472
· McDonnell v Walker [2009] EWCA Civ 1257
· A v Hoare [2008] 1 AC 844
Globe J made the following points:-
Globe J would disapply the limitation period under section 33 to both the assault and the safeguarding claim.
Globe J now turned to the vicarious liability for the assault claim. He referred to the following cases:-
Globe J said that there was a high level of control over all aspects of the life of a Jehovah’s Witness, arguably closer than that to be found in an employer/employee relationship. The organisational structure was similar to that found in the Catholic Church and prescriptive guidance as to what each member did. A ministerial servant was part and parcel of the organisations and integral to it.
The first question was whether the relationship between Mr Stewart and the church was so close in character to that of employer/employee that it was just and fair to hold the employer vicariously liable. The answer was yes.
The second question was whether the acts of sexual abuse were connected to the relationship of the Defendants and Peter Stewart in such a way as to give rise to vicarious liability.
Globe J referred to the following cases:-
In relation to the factual issues, Globe J accepted the evidence of the Claimant in relation to her account of the abuse. Peter Stewart took the opportunity whenever it arose to take the Claimant with him on field study. His access to the Claimant came about as a direct result of Peter Stewart’s known and established position as a ministerial servant. His sexual abuse was not as a result of the mere opportunity of his presence in the Claimant’s company for reasons outside any role he was playing as a Jehovah’s Witness. Whether the abuse took place at or after book study at whoever’s home, on field service or at the church, Mr Stewart was ostensibly performing his duties as a Jehovah’s Witness. Consequently it would be fair and just to hold the Defendants vicariously liable for his abuse.
In relation to the safeguarding claim, Globe J considered whether there was a duty of care. It was disputed that there was a sufficient relationship of proximity between the elders of the church and the Claimant such that it was fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on them. The Claimant had argued that in dealing with Peter Stewart in 1990, the elders had assumed responsibility to children in their congregation.
There was evidence on this issue from three sources. First the elders gave evidence supported by evidence from independent safeguarding experts. Secondly there was guidance from the Jehovah’s Witnesses church dating from 1990. The third source was what actually happened – the elders had formed a committee to investigate Mr Stewart. Globe J said that there was an assumption of responsibility, that there was sufficient proximity and that it would be just, fair and reasonable to impose a duty of care.
The next question was the scope of that duty. Globe J considered the evidence of the safeguarding experts. In his judgment the elders assumed a duty responsibility to warn the congregation and individual parents about the risks posed by Peter Stewart. There was a breach of that duty insofar as they had failed to warn the Claimant’s mother about him, either adequately or at all.
The Defendants would be vicariously liable in relation to the failure to safeguard by the elders.
The claim would succeed.
FACTS:-
The Claimant was sexually abused by one Peter Stewart (now deceased) between 1989 and 1994 when she was aged between 4 and 9. He was a ministerial servant in the Jehovah’s Witnesses and was subsequently convicted of abusing another child and a young female relative. Quantum had been agreed subject to liability. There were multiple Defendants but it was also agreed that if the second and/or third Defendants were liable, then the First Defendants would satisfy the judgment. The Claimant alleged that the Defendants were vicariously liable for the actions of Peter Stewart, and secondly that one of the sets of elders involved failed to take reasonable steps to protect the Claimant from him, once they knew that he had assaulted another child in the congregation in 1990. Consequently the Defendants were vicariously liable for that mistake.
JUDGMENT:-
Mr Justice Globe said that there were four issues to be determined:-
- Limitation – section 14 Limitation Act 1980 - “knowledge”
- Limitation – section 33 Limitation Act 1980 - “disapplication”
- Vicarious liability – “the assault claim”
- Vicarious liability – “the safeguarding claim”
Globe J considered the structure and governance of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Within each congregation, there were elders, ministerial servants and members of the congregation. The church as a whole had a system for the investigation and exclusion of members who were guilty of any “sin.”
In relation to section 14, Globe J said that it was the Claimant’s case that she had only had the requisite knowledge to bring her claim when she read what had happened in 1990. This happened in March 2014 following service of the Defendants’ witness statements. There was a conflict of evidence in relation to precisely what warnings had been issued to the Claimant’s mother in 1990. Globe J preferred the evidence of the Claimant’s mother who denied any warning being given. The Claimant herself said that she had actually questioned a church elder about Mr Stewart in 2002, having heard her parents discuss it. The elder had apparently denied any knowledge of allegations against Peter Stewart, and a similar denial was made by another elder in 2006. Globe J considered section 14(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 and referred to the following cases:-
- AB and Others v Ministry of Defence [2013] 1 AC 78
- Haward v Fawcetts [2006] 1 WLR 682
In the judgement of Globe J, the Claimant’s belief was not held with sufficient confidence to justify embarking on the preliminaries to the issue of proceedings. The belief that she had was no more than a mere suspicion. Consequently the Claimant did not have “knowledge” for the purposes of section 14 until March 2014 in relation to her safeguarding claim.
In relation to section 33, Globe J went over the terms of the section and referred to the following cases:-
· Donovan v Gwentoys [1990] 1 WLR 472
· McDonnell v Walker [2009] EWCA Civ 1257
· A v Hoare [2008] 1 AC 844
Globe J made the following points:-
- Whilst the period between the abuse and the bringing of proceedings made the claim an “historic one” – this was not a case where everything was in issue. The sexual abuse was not at issue here.
- The Claimant had suffered post traumatic stress disorder, which explained why she did not bring proceedings immediately on attaining adulthood.
- The Defendant’s conduct was not relevant, neither were the factors listed in section 33(3)(d) to (f).
- The real focus was on the cogency of the evidence – none of the key witnesses had died since limitation had expired. The Defence had no identified any lost documents during that period of time.
- The Claimant had no redress against anyone else. If limitation were not disapplied, that would be the end of the case for her.
- A fair trial remained possible
Globe J would disapply the limitation period under section 33 to both the assault and the safeguarding claim.
Globe J now turned to the vicarious liability for the assault claim. He referred to the following cases:-
- Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56
- E v English Province of Our Lady of Charity and Another [2013] QB 722
- Stevenson Jordan & Harrison Limited v McDonald & Evans [1952] 1 TLR 101
Globe J said that there was a high level of control over all aspects of the life of a Jehovah’s Witness, arguably closer than that to be found in an employer/employee relationship. The organisational structure was similar to that found in the Catholic Church and prescriptive guidance as to what each member did. A ministerial servant was part and parcel of the organisations and integral to it.
The first question was whether the relationship between Mr Stewart and the church was so close in character to that of employer/employee that it was just and fair to hold the employer vicariously liable. The answer was yes.
The second question was whether the acts of sexual abuse were connected to the relationship of the Defendants and Peter Stewart in such a way as to give rise to vicarious liability.
Globe J referred to the following cases:-
- Lister v Hesley Hall Limited [2002] 1 AC 215
- Maga v Archbishop of Birmingham [2010] 1 WLR 1441
In relation to the factual issues, Globe J accepted the evidence of the Claimant in relation to her account of the abuse. Peter Stewart took the opportunity whenever it arose to take the Claimant with him on field study. His access to the Claimant came about as a direct result of Peter Stewart’s known and established position as a ministerial servant. His sexual abuse was not as a result of the mere opportunity of his presence in the Claimant’s company for reasons outside any role he was playing as a Jehovah’s Witness. Whether the abuse took place at or after book study at whoever’s home, on field service or at the church, Mr Stewart was ostensibly performing his duties as a Jehovah’s Witness. Consequently it would be fair and just to hold the Defendants vicariously liable for his abuse.
In relation to the safeguarding claim, Globe J considered whether there was a duty of care. It was disputed that there was a sufficient relationship of proximity between the elders of the church and the Claimant such that it was fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on them. The Claimant had argued that in dealing with Peter Stewart in 1990, the elders had assumed responsibility to children in their congregation.
There was evidence on this issue from three sources. First the elders gave evidence supported by evidence from independent safeguarding experts. Secondly there was guidance from the Jehovah’s Witnesses church dating from 1990. The third source was what actually happened – the elders had formed a committee to investigate Mr Stewart. Globe J said that there was an assumption of responsibility, that there was sufficient proximity and that it would be just, fair and reasonable to impose a duty of care.
The next question was the scope of that duty. Globe J considered the evidence of the safeguarding experts. In his judgment the elders assumed a duty responsibility to warn the congregation and individual parents about the risks posed by Peter Stewart. There was a breach of that duty insofar as they had failed to warn the Claimant’s mother about him, either adequately or at all.
The Defendants would be vicariously liable in relation to the failure to safeguard by the elders.
The claim would succeed.