Landmark ruling sets scene for Savile claims

The Supreme Court has extended the scope of vicarious liability in a landmark judgment on the sexual abuse of children that makes a civil claim by victims of Jimmy Savile more likely.

Five justices unanimously ruled last week that an unincorporated association of lay religious brothers shared vicarious liability for abuse committed by some of its members between 1958 and 1992, in Catholic Child Welfare Society and others v The Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools [2012] UKSC 56.

The claim was brought by a group of 170 men who attended a children’s home, St William’s School, in Yorkshire, and relates to incidents between 1958 and 1992. The Catholic Child Welfare Society managed the home, but the institute placed brothers at the school as teachers. The majority of the claimants allege they were abused by brothers.

The court held that, while the perpetrators of the abuse were not employees, there was a sufficiently close link for vicarious liability to exist—overturning the High Court and Court of Appeal, which found the society liable but not the institute.

Delivering judgment, Lord Phillips said: “What has weighed with the courts has been the fact that the relationship has facilitated the commission of the abuse by placing the abusers in a position where they enjoyed both physical proximity to their victims and the influence of authority over them both as teachers and as men of god.”

Colm Nugent, a barrister at Hardwicke, says: “Importantly for the Savile victims, the institute placed the brothers in teaching positions and positions of trust enabling them to commit the abuse.

“The BBC provided a platform for Savile to have access to children placing him in hugely powerful position...Other institutions gave him wide ranging access to vulnerable children, apparently without checks or significant restrictions. This decision makes claims by Savile’s victims more likely and more likely to succeed.”

Kari Hansen, partner at Hill Dickinson, who acted for the insurers of the Middlesbrough defendants in the case, says: “This judgment has not only clarified the law as to the vicarious liability of unincorporated associations, but has emphasised that in cases where there is an argument for dual vicarious liability, the relationships between the ‘employee’ and each of the potential ‘employers’ have to be looked at separately and considered on their own merits.”