header-logo header-logo

Time to take time

08 April 2016 / Richard Scorer
Issue: 7693 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail
istock_000018601769_web

The courts should treat victims of child abuse sympathetically in relation to time limits, says Richard Scorer

In the past 20 years, as awareness of the abuse of children in institutions has grown, there has been a significant expansion in the numbers of civil claims for damages brought by survivors of child abuse. These claims are personal injury claims, ie the victim seeks compensation for the physical and mental harm caused by childhood abuse. This raises a difficult dilemma regarding time limits. In England and Wales, most personal injury claims attract a limitation period of three years from the date of accrual of the cause of action, although the three-year period does not start to run until the claimant turns 18. However, many child abuse claims are brought as historic or “non-recent” cases: although the abuse occurred in childhood, the action is brought many years—in some cases decades—after the alleged abuse. So to what extent should the time limits in child abuse claims mirror those in other forms of personal injury litigation? Should victims

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll