AB AND OTHERS V NUGENT CARE SOCIETY Unreported 16th July 2010 Mr Justice Irwin
This was a group action, where an application had been made for a Group Litigation Order in July 2002 in respect of former residents of the St George’s Children’s Home in the Manchester High Court. In April 2004 the application was approved and then in October 2004, a case management conference took place. An application was made by the Defendants for limitation to be heard by way of preliminary issue, which was heard on the 25th April 2005 and granted by the judge. However the trial on preliminary issue was stopped because of the presence of other group litigation. The Claimant now said that the order should be varied. 
​Full report here.
​
THOMPSON V ARCHBISHOP OF LIVERPOOL AND OTHERS [2009] EWCA CIV 1115
The Claimant was at a Roman Catholic boarding school between September 1978 and December 1979. He alleged sexual assault by two priests and a music teacher. He alleged negligence and trespass against the person. The Defendants made an application for the case to be heard by way of preliminary issue on limitation, which application was refused by Master Rose. It was agreed by all parties that the issue in this case on limitation would be that of section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980. The Defendants appealed to Mr Justice McKay who in Thompson v Archbishop of Liverpool and Others Unreported 19th December 2008 Justice McKay confirmed the decision of the Master. The Defendants made an application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.  ​Full report here.

THOMPSON V ARCHBISHOP OF LIVERPOOL AND OTHERS Unreported 19th December 2008 Justice McKay
The Claimant was at a Roman Catholic boarding school between September 1978 and December 1979. He alleged sexual assault by two priests and a music teacher. He alleged negligence and trespass against the person. The Defendants made an application for the case to be heard by way of preliminary issue on limitation, which application was refused by Master Rose. It was agreed by all parties that the issue in this case on limitation would be that of section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980. The Defendants appealed. Full report here.

Contact Us

    Subscribe to Updates Today!

The contents of this site remains the sole responsibility of Malcolm Johnson as a private individual, and is not endorsed by any business by which he is employed.  In particular Malcolm Johnson does not hold himself out as preparing this website for or on behalf of any business by which he is employed, or as having been authorised by any business or employer to do so.  It is not intended to stand as legal advice in any particular case, and should not be relied upon as such.   To the extent permitted by law, Malcolm Johnson will not be liable by reason of breach of contract, negligence, or otherwise for any loss of consequential loss occasioned to any person acting omitting to act or refraining from acting in reliance upon the website material or arising from or connected with any error or omission in the website material.    Consequential loss shall be deemed to include, but is not limited to, any loss of profits or anticipated profits, damage to reputation, or goodwill, loss of business or anticipated business, damages, costs, expenses incurred or payable to any third party or any other indirect or consequential losses.