header-logo header-logo

02 June 2011 / Heather Platt
Issue: 7468 / Categories: Features , Child law , Family , Personal injury , Limitation
printer mail-detail

Handle with kid gloves

gettyimages_112062879_4

Heather Platt examines the law in relation to children who sue their parents

IN BRIEF

  • The provisions of the Limitation Act 1980 lead to peculiar and unjust outcomes for claimants maltreated during their early years.
  • Claimants are advised to plead both negligence and trespass.

The law of tort is primarily concerned with providing a remedy to those who have been harmed by the conduct of others. This article considers the law in respect of parents’ legal obligations towards their children and some examples of cases which involve a child suing his or her parents for causing physical or psychological harm.

The case law in the UK has developed under the umbrellas of negligence and trespass to the person. However, one of the problems faced by claimants, particularly those who were abused as children, is the limitation regime which can operate in an arbitrary way causing irrational and unjust outcomes.

The limitation hurdle

The statutory basis for the limitation is the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980). It provides

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll