In FZO v London Borough of Haringey [2020] EWCA Civ 180, the Court docket of Enchantment thought of an attraction from the trial decide awarding the claimant the sum of £1,121,937.50. The claimant had been abused by a faculty instructor between 1980 and 1983-Four whereas at college, and after he had left faculty up till the age of 21 in 1988. The native authority had accepted that it was vicariously accountable for the instructor’s assaults between 1980 and 1982 however not thereafter, alleging that after the claimant left the college he was consenting to the abuse. The grounds of the native authority’s attraction rested on limitation, the difficulty of consent, vicarious legal responsibility and causation.

Malcolm Johnson

In relation to limitation, McCombe LJ stated that the trial decide’s judgment had been an extended and cautious one. She had summarised the essential choices on the appliance of the rules affecting the train of the discretion to disapply a limitation interval underneath part 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 and he or she had reminded herself of the necessity to not decide the substantive points, together with legal responsibility, causation and quantum, earlier than figuring out the difficulty of limitation and, particularly, the impact of delay on the cogency of the proof.

Cogency of proof

There was some inconsistency within the proof and at instances the claimant had exaggerated or over-dramatised facets of his proof, however these weren’t such that the claimant’s declare should fail. She had additionally accepted the proof of the claimant’s psychiatrist that it was inconceivable to have a look at the behaviour of the claimant and the instructor after the claimant left faculty individually from the grooming and abuse of him whereas he was on the faculty. In relation to the cogency of the proof, the trial decide had concluded that the reminiscence of neither the claimant nor the abuser had been affected to such an extent that the matter couldn’t be safely tried. As for lacking proof, she concluded that there was more likely to have been little proof out there about this at any time and, furthermore, that the defendant had not sought to search out any such proof. However delay, each psychiatrists had been capable of attain agency conclusions. It was cheap for the claimant to have waited till the conclusion of the prison proceedings to concern proceedings.

Limitation concern

McCombe LJ considered being wholly unrealistic the native authority’s submission that the decide couldn’t correctly take into account the respective credibility of each the claimant and the instructor when coping with the limitation concern. If a defendant selected, in a case of this sort, to argue {that a} limitation interval shouldn’t be disapplied due to the full lack of credibility of the claimant he/she/it should take the chance {that a} decide must assess the credibility of each side, even for limitation functions.

There have been different points to be thought of in deciding whether or not to train the discretion underneath part 33, which the decide thought of totally and correctly. The flexibility to carry a good trial was not ‘the be all and finish all’, notably in a case the place a lot of what the claimant stated had occurred was accepted by the abuser himself. No important concrete examples of lacking witnesses had been superior by the native authority. Not one of the issues now steered within the attraction to be materials appeared to have been investigated and there was nothing to indicate that different witnesses had been sought however not discovered. An appellate court docket could be very sluggish to intrude with a call underneath part 33, as long as there had been no misdirection of regulation or misapprehension of great details.

On the difficulty of consent, case regulation confirmed that submission was not the identical as consent, whether or not within the prison regulation or the civil regulation. The decide discovered, having heard the oral proof of each the claimant and the instructor (and assisted by the knowledgeable witnesses to know that proof within the mild of the claimant’s psychological state), that the claimant didn’t really consent to what occurred to him by the hands of the instructor within the interval as much as 1988. An appellate court docket couldn’t second-guess this decide’s judgment on this level, primarily based because it was on her evaluation of each the detailed factual and knowledgeable proof, given by witnesses whom she noticed and heard.

With regard to vicarious legal responsibility, the native authority had submitted that it was not liable in respect of any of the acts that occurred after the claimant left the college. The decide referred to the two-stage take a look at for legal responsibility set out in Mohamud v Wm. Morrison Supermarkets PLC [2016] AC 677 and located that the take a look at was clearly happy in respect of all durations. The later assaults had been merely a continuation of the behaviour that commenced whereas and since the abuser was the native authority’s instructor. McCombe LJ stated that the decide had appropriately recognized the 2 levels of the take a look at. As was famous in Wm. Morrison Supermarkets, the time and place at which the act or acts occurred would all the time be related, although not conclusive.


In relation to causation, the decide had most popular the opinion of the claimant’s psychiatrist and he or she was entitled to take action. There was some settlement between the psychiatrists, and at one stage the native authority’s knowledgeable had stated that if the court docket accepted the claimant’s account that he was groomed in the best way that he stated he was his opinion on this matter could be totally different. McCombe LJ stated that it was extraordinarily essential on this case to notice that every of the consultants recognised very pretty that their opinions may change within the mild of the court docket’s choices on the first details as to the character and extent of the abuse and as to the query of who was the instigator of the sexual exercise.

McCombe LJ and the rest of the court docket dismissed the attraction.


Malcolm Johnson is a senior solicitor at Hudgell Solicitors