House of Lords Landmark Ruling sets a New Precedent

1. House of Lords Landmark Ruling sets a New Precedent

2. Iorworth Hoare, 53, was jailed for life in May 1989 for the attempted rape of the 59-year-old woman, Mrs A, in Leeds. The Law Lords had to decide if the £7m National Lottery winner Hoare, could be sued by Mrs A. A v Hoare 2008 HL

3. These men were all convicted of child abuse but they could not be sued because their victims did not come forward until years after the event.

4. Why couldn’t they be sued? • The case of Stubbings v Webb 1993 stated that claims arising from sexual abuse and sexual assaults which took places many years before the victims tried to sue, were barred by section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980. • The section limits action in tort cases to those started within 6 years. Where cases arise from personal injury the limit is 3 years BUT there is a discretion for the court to extend the period. • Stubbings v Webb said the discretion would not apply to cases of deliberate assault including indecent assault. • The Claimants argued Stubbings was wrongly decided and the House of Lords should depart from it in accordance with the Practice Statement on Judicial Precedent 1966.

5. Five cases were heard together • Mrs A v Iorworth Hoare: Claimant was the victim of an attempted rape by Hoare in Leeds in 1988 • C v Middlesbrough Council: Claimant was sexually abused between 1982 and 1988 between the ages of 10 to 16 at a council-managed school • H v Suffolk County Council: H claims he was sexually abused while resident at a school managed by the council • X and Y v Wandsworth: X and Y both allege they were sexually abused between 1984 and 1987 at a council-managed school • Young v Catholic Care and the Home Office: The claimant alleges sexual abuse at a school and detention centre

6. What was decided? • The House of Lords ruling in A v Hoare [2008] has permitted these people to claim ‘out of time’. The Lords overruled the earlier case of Stubbings v Webb on the issue of the limitation period in the case and referred to the Practice Statement 1966. Lord Hoffman said he considered the decision in Stubbings was wrongly decided however that in itself was not a reason for departing from the decision. He said Lord Reid had previously noted in R v NI Commissioner ex p Hudson 1972 that the Practice Statement was only intended to be used in a small number of cases where decisions were “thought to be impeding the proper development of the law or to have led to results which were unjust or contrary to public policy”. Lord Reid observed that:

7. “It is notorious that where an existing decision is disapproved but cannot be overruled courts tend to distinguish it on inadequate grounds. I do not think that they act wrongly in so doing: they are adopting the less bad of the only alternatives open to them. But this is bound to lead to uncertainty for no one can say in advance whether in a particular case the court will or will not feel bound to follow the old unsatisfactory decision. On balance it seems to me that overruling such a decision will promote and not impair certainty of the law”. Lord Reid R v National Insurance Commissioners ex p Hudson 1972

8. Result • Having considered Lord Reid’s comments in this earlier case; looked at the effects of Stubbings v Webb on case law; considered the recommendations of the Law Commission report of 2001 on Limitation of Actions, and the legislation, Lord Hoffman stated he thought “it would be right to depart from Stubbings and reaffirm the law laid down by the Court of Appeal in Letang v Cooper 1965” – an earlier decision which he felt he could now approve. • All the Judges in the case, (Lords, Walker, Carswell, Brown and Baroness Hale), unanimously agreed with Lord Hoffman’s judgement. Baroness Hale