RAR V GGC [2012] EWHC 2238 (QB)
FACTS:-
The Defendant was the step father of the Claimant. She alleged that between 1972 and 1977 when she was aged 7 to 12, he physically and sexually assaulted her on many occasions. He had been convicted in 1978 of indecently assaulting the Claimant on one occasion.
Proceedings were issued against the Defendant on the 5th April 2011 and he entered a Defence denying the assaults. He also raised the defence of limitation. At trial the Defendant did not appear and his solicitors had come off the record.
JUDGEMENT:-
Mr Justice Davies said that the principal issues were:-
(i) should the discretion conferred by Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 be exercised in favour of the Claimant?
(ii) What was the nature and extent of the alleged assaults perpetrated by the Defendant on the Claimant?
(iii) What was the nature and extend of any resultant personal injury and loss?
(iv) What was the appropriate level of damages?
A claim had been made for pain, suffering and loss of amenity together with aggravated damages, past loss of earnings, future loss of earnings and treatment costs.
Davies J considered Section 11 and 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 and relevant cases:-
Davies J was satisfied that it would be fair and just to invoke the discretion afforded to the court by section 33 of the 1980 Act and permit the case to proceed to trial. This was because:-
The abuse had been sexual and physical and had occurred around four to eight times a month over a period of some five years. Davies J considered the evidence from both sides, and the record of the conviction in the magistrates’ court in 1977. She also considered the medical records of the Claimant, whom she found a credible witness. Consequently the Claimant’s evidence would be accepted.
In relation to damages, the Claimant had had long spells of psychiatric treatment, but had been able to work for a time. She had been diagnosed with complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. She had self harmed, which had caused extensive scarring. According to the psychiatric evidence, the abuse was the major cause of her illness and even with treatment she was likely to have further psychiatric problems.
Davies J would award:-
Psychiatric damage - £60,000
Scarring - £10,000
Aggravated damages - £10,000
Past loss of earnings - £190,703.39,
Interest thereon - £108,233.71
Future loss of earnings - £62,193.90
Psychotherapy - £2800
Skin care (for scarring) - £23,942.80
Interest on general and aggravated damages - £2,161.10
Total - £470,034.90
FACTS:-
The Defendant was the step father of the Claimant. She alleged that between 1972 and 1977 when she was aged 7 to 12, he physically and sexually assaulted her on many occasions. He had been convicted in 1978 of indecently assaulting the Claimant on one occasion.
Proceedings were issued against the Defendant on the 5th April 2011 and he entered a Defence denying the assaults. He also raised the defence of limitation. At trial the Defendant did not appear and his solicitors had come off the record.
JUDGEMENT:-
Mr Justice Davies said that the principal issues were:-
(i) should the discretion conferred by Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 be exercised in favour of the Claimant?
(ii) What was the nature and extent of the alleged assaults perpetrated by the Defendant on the Claimant?
(iii) What was the nature and extend of any resultant personal injury and loss?
(iv) What was the appropriate level of damages?
A claim had been made for pain, suffering and loss of amenity together with aggravated damages, past loss of earnings, future loss of earnings and treatment costs.
Davies J considered Section 11 and 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 and relevant cases:-
- A v Hoare [2008] UKHL 6
- Cain v Francis [2009] QB 754
Davies J was satisfied that it would be fair and just to invoke the discretion afforded to the court by section 33 of the 1980 Act and permit the case to proceed to trial. This was because:-
- The abuse had affected the mental health of the Claimant quite severely, and so delayed the bringing of the claim
- The Defendant appeared to have a good memory as to what had happened in the 1970’s, as he had filed a detailed witness statement.
- The case depended on the evidence of two people, but there did not appear to be any difficult on the part of either in remembering what had happened.
The abuse had been sexual and physical and had occurred around four to eight times a month over a period of some five years. Davies J considered the evidence from both sides, and the record of the conviction in the magistrates’ court in 1977. She also considered the medical records of the Claimant, whom she found a credible witness. Consequently the Claimant’s evidence would be accepted.
In relation to damages, the Claimant had had long spells of psychiatric treatment, but had been able to work for a time. She had been diagnosed with complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. She had self harmed, which had caused extensive scarring. According to the psychiatric evidence, the abuse was the major cause of her illness and even with treatment she was likely to have further psychiatric problems.
Davies J would award:-
Psychiatric damage - £60,000
Scarring - £10,000
Aggravated damages - £10,000
Past loss of earnings - £190,703.39,
Interest thereon - £108,233.71
Future loss of earnings - £62,193.90
Psychotherapy - £2800
Skin care (for scarring) - £23,942.80
Interest on general and aggravated damages - £2,161.10
Total - £470,034.90