NA v Nottinghamshire County Council [2014] EWHC 4005 (QB) limitation
 
In this case, which ended up in the UK Supreme Court as Armes v Nottinghamshire
County Council [2017] UKSC 60, Males J gave very useful guidance on limitation at paragraph 82 of his judgment :- 
 
“i) The burden is on the claimant to show that it would be equitable to disapply the limitation period.
 

1. Where more than one claim is brought by a claimant, the discretion should be exercised separately in relation to each claim.

 

1. The longer the delay, the more likely it is that the defendant will be prejudiced, but this will always depend on the issues and the nature of the evidence going to those issues. Delay is not critical in itself, but only to the extent that it has an effect on the defendant's ability to defend the claim. 

 

1. If a fair trial is no longer possible, that will be the end of the matter. An action cannot be allowed to proceed if that would result in an unfair trial. But if a fair trial is possible notwithstanding that there is some prejudice, the balance of injustice needs to be considered, weighing whatever prejudice the defendant has suffered in the light of all the circumstances of the case. 

 

1. The troubled background of many claimants complaining of child abuse must be taken into account. This will include, where applicable, the fact that the lives of many such claimants deteriorate into alcohol and drug abuse and crime, often caused to some extent by their childhood experiences. The law must also recognize the inhibitions which abuse will often cause, making it difficult or impossible for claimants to describe what has happened to them, sometimes until well after they reach adulthood. Such considerations may provide a good reason for delay in commencing proceedings.

 

1. Developments in the law relating to vicarious liability (and, I would add, non-delegable duties) have made it easier for a claimant to establish liability against an employer or similar defendant because, in cases where the defendant is responsible in law for the conduct of the abuser, all that the claimant needs to prove is the fact of the abuse; in such cases it is no longer necessary to prove a systemic failure on the part of the defendant; in consequence, the evidential focus in such cases is likely to be narrower than it previously was; so too, therefore, the effect of delay on the possibility of a fair trial will generally involve a narrower enquiry.

 

1. Ultimately the discretion is wide and unfettered, with all relevant circumstances needing to be taken into account, including those mentioned in section 33 itself, although this list is not exhaustive.”