A.B. AND OTHERS V LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL AND OTHERS (UNREPORTED) 21ST MAY 2001 MANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRY
FACTS:-
The case concerned group litigation, under the name “North West Child Abuse” cases. There were three Defendants, Liverpool City Council, the Nugent Care Society, and the National Children’s Home. The litigation involved the abuse of children at five different children’s homes.
The issue before the court was that of limitation, and whether that should be tried as a preliminary issue.
HELD:-
Mr Justice Douglas Brown said that it would be necessary for the judge who heard this matter to consider the following issues (although this was not an exhaustive list).
· The abuse and its effect on the Claimant insofar as causation and quantum of damages were concerned.
· The Claimant’s history prior to the abuse, during and after the abuse up to the very least the issue of proceedings
· The court should have psychiatric/psychological expert evidence on the issues of causation and quantum
Such evidence would be expensive. Each medical expert’s report was bound to cost between £1500 and £5,000. The cost of the litigation to the Legal Services Commission and to the Defendants would be very considerable indeed. That was quite apart from the court resources involved in the litigation, which could take up to a year to try.
Justice Douglas Brown considered the arguments that had been advanced by counsel for the various parties. He had to exercise his discretion and carry out a balancing exercise. The first matter to consider was whether it was possible to evaluate the prospects of success of the Claimant and the Defendant on the issue of limitation. If the evidence demonstrated that the Claimant was almost bound to fail, on date of knowledge and on section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, the case for having a preliminary issue tried first would be a strong one. However Justice Douglas Brown did not think that the Defendants’ case on limitation had a real prospect of success. He said that these were difficult cases, and inevitably these arguments would be based on a considerably body of evidence called. He found it impossible to forecast the result or assess the prospects of success of either party. He referred to the unreported case of Ablett and Others v Devon County Council and Others 21st September 2000 and said that Toulson J had reached the same conclusion.
The advantages of preliminary issue were considerable if the Defendants succeeded, in terms of costs savings. If the Claimants succeeded on preliminary issue, then most of the evidence already given would be given again. That was likely to be stressful for the Claimants.
The judge trying the case could not decide the issue of limitation without being sure that he had really fully and sufficiently understood what had allegedly happened to the person and the effect on him.
Justice Douglas Brown accepted that the issue of liability, causation, quantum and limitation were inextricably bound together, and that the trial of limitation as a preliminary issue would be likely to result in an unnecessary duplication of the same material at huge costs. Disclosure would need to be complete, if the judge were to make a full determination under section 33(3)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980 as to the cogency of the evidence.
Therefore the balance came down strongly against trying limitation first of all. There was a serious risk of injustice to the Claimants.
FACTS:-
The case concerned group litigation, under the name “North West Child Abuse” cases. There were three Defendants, Liverpool City Council, the Nugent Care Society, and the National Children’s Home. The litigation involved the abuse of children at five different children’s homes.
The issue before the court was that of limitation, and whether that should be tried as a preliminary issue.
HELD:-
Mr Justice Douglas Brown said that it would be necessary for the judge who heard this matter to consider the following issues (although this was not an exhaustive list).
· The abuse and its effect on the Claimant insofar as causation and quantum of damages were concerned.
· The Claimant’s history prior to the abuse, during and after the abuse up to the very least the issue of proceedings
· The court should have psychiatric/psychological expert evidence on the issues of causation and quantum
Such evidence would be expensive. Each medical expert’s report was bound to cost between £1500 and £5,000. The cost of the litigation to the Legal Services Commission and to the Defendants would be very considerable indeed. That was quite apart from the court resources involved in the litigation, which could take up to a year to try.
Justice Douglas Brown considered the arguments that had been advanced by counsel for the various parties. He had to exercise his discretion and carry out a balancing exercise. The first matter to consider was whether it was possible to evaluate the prospects of success of the Claimant and the Defendant on the issue of limitation. If the evidence demonstrated that the Claimant was almost bound to fail, on date of knowledge and on section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, the case for having a preliminary issue tried first would be a strong one. However Justice Douglas Brown did not think that the Defendants’ case on limitation had a real prospect of success. He said that these were difficult cases, and inevitably these arguments would be based on a considerably body of evidence called. He found it impossible to forecast the result or assess the prospects of success of either party. He referred to the unreported case of Ablett and Others v Devon County Council and Others 21st September 2000 and said that Toulson J had reached the same conclusion.
The advantages of preliminary issue were considerable if the Defendants succeeded, in terms of costs savings. If the Claimants succeeded on preliminary issue, then most of the evidence already given would be given again. That was likely to be stressful for the Claimants.
The judge trying the case could not decide the issue of limitation without being sure that he had really fully and sufficiently understood what had allegedly happened to the person and the effect on him.
Justice Douglas Brown accepted that the issue of liability, causation, quantum and limitation were inextricably bound together, and that the trial of limitation as a preliminary issue would be likely to result in an unnecessary duplication of the same material at huge costs. Disclosure would need to be complete, if the judge were to make a full determination under section 33(3)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980 as to the cogency of the evidence.
Therefore the balance came down strongly against trying limitation first of all. There was a serious risk of injustice to the Claimants.