Child Abuse

Abuse by foster father

From the age of 8 to 13 Ms X was abused by her foster father. She was able to consider taking legal action when she was 32 but by then the statutory limit (6 years) for bringing a claim against the foster father was time barred. In one of the first cases of its kind, we sued the foster mother for failing to protect her from the abuse and successfully argued that the 3 year time limit should be extended. Ms X recovered £25,000.00.

Abuse in care

We took over conduct of this case from a firm of solicitors who had closed their abuse department. The claimant had been abused in care as a child and found the legal process very difficult to deal with. He wanted to reach a conclusion as quickly as possible. When we received the papers we immediately prepared to issue proceedings and invited the Defendants to make an offer to settle the case. The Defendants offered £7,500.00. This was not accepted. We issued and served the claim and made a formal offer to settle the claim for £20,000.00 and this was accepted by the Defendants.

Abuse in children's home

In I -v- D, we acted for a client who had been sexually abused whilst placed in the care of her local authority many years ago. The man who abused her was the manager of the children's home, and he had since died. Our client was extremely affected by the abuse and could not come to terms with what had happened to her for some years. We alleged that the local authority was responsible for her while she had been in care, and had failed to protect her. At all stages, solicitors for the local authority argued that our client had issued proceedings "out of time" and therefore could not recover damages. They also denied that their client was responsible. By doggedly pursuing several court applications for relevant documents we found out that the council had had suspicions about the manager for many years and even before our client was placed in his care. The defendant's final offer of £50,000 was accepted just before trial, and we also negotiated an unreserved apology from the council to our client.

Challenging the time limits for bringing claims - Leading judgment in the House of Lords

We represented two men who had been abused as children by their form teacher in a London school in the 1980s. It was only after they had grown up, and were in their late 20's that they independently started to come to terms with what happened to them, and the effect that the abuse was still having on their lives. They had co-operated with the police in bringing their abuser to justice through the criminal courts, but when it came to a compensation claim they were technically 'out of time'. We sued the abuser's employers, who maintained throughout that the claims were time barred. We took their case as a test case first to trial at the Mayors & City County Court in October 2005 where our clients lost, but were given permission to appeal. Their case was heard in the Court of Appeal in April 2006 - our clients lost but the judges were sympathetic and allowed a further appeal to the House of Lords, which gave judgment in January 2008. Both our clients won, the Law Lords accepting that the old law was wrong, and overturned a previous House of Lords decision (a very rare event!). The case, X & Y v London Borough of Wandsworth was one of a group of cases which has changed the law and effectively allows child abuse victims the same rights as other personal injury claimants to apply to the court to waive the time limits in cases where otherwise a fair trial would still be possible. Our clients won damages of £57,000 and £70,000 respectively, as well as payment of their legal costs from the London Borough which had opposed them all the way.

Court halts Catholic Church's bid to limit child abuse claim

Bolt Burdon Kemp’s specialist child abuse team represent George Thompson in a claim for sexual abuse suffered whilst attending a seminary school in Lancashire in the 1970’s. The Catholic Church, who are defending the claim, appealed against the refusal of the court to have the issue of Mr Thompson’s delay in bringing proceedings tried as a preliminary issue. The appeal was heard on the 19th December 2008 and the approved judgment has just been released. Mr Justice Mackay refused the Defendant’s appeal, and said that it would be very unfair on Mr Thompson, who suffers profound psychological difficulties, because potentially he would have to give evidence twice in court. This judgment is likely to be of considerable assistance to other claimants who increasingly are facing similar applications in these cases. The Defendants are seeking permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. We will keep you informed!

Criminal injuries compensation claims for child abuse compensation

We have also acted for clients in CICA claims for sexual and physical abuse in childhood, which we have run parallel to a civil claim for damages. We typically secure between £6,000 and £18,000 in compensation in these claims, even where our clients are technically 'out of time' for submitting their application. Sometimes if there is enough evidence to prove a loss of earnings, these awards can be much higher.

Criminal injuries compensation for shaken baby

Miss E sustained catastrophic brain injury when she was two months old, as a result of a violent shaking by her father who subsequently pleaded guilty to the offence of assault causing grievous bodily harm. As a result of her injuries Miss E suffered cerebral palsy affecting all four of her limbs, with fits and seizures controlled by medication. She would have significant developmental delays and extensive health and care needs, unable to sit up or roll over and with poor vision. We achieved the maximum award of £250,000.00 for the injuries themselves within 2 years of applying to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority for compensation. In addition we successfully persuaded the CICA to pay the costs of setting up and administering the trust fund, when normally those costs would be deducted from the award.

'Failure to remove' settlement

We acted for Ms R who successfully claimed damages against London Borough of Hackney, who settled her claim for £57,500 plus costs. Our client was the oldest of 3 siblings who were subjected to physical and sexual abuse at the hands of their mother and step father. We argued that Social Services should have taken action to remove the children into care at an earlier stage. Our client in fact had to take her own court proceedings when aged 16 to get her younger brother and sister out of the abusive environment in which they all lived, which had been contested by the Council. In addition to the compensation, our client received an apology in person from the Director of Children’s Services at the Council.

First 'failure to retain in care' case to succeed at trial (and again on appeal)

Back in December 2007, we made legal history by taking the first child abuse compensation case of its kind to trial at the High Court. We represented Jake Pierce in his claim against the London Borough of Doncaster. Jake was born in 1976 to a family which was already known to the local Social Services department. Because of grave concerns by social services, he was removed into foster care at an early age, and stayed in care for 15 months until, with a change of personnel at the council, he was allowed back home with his parents. He went on to be horribly abused until he was 14, when he ran away from home to escape his brutal home life. It was alleged that social services failed to properly monitor him having returned him home. The case was strongly contested and went to trial in the High Court in London. Mr Justice Eady accepted our case that Jake had been abused and that - knowing what they knew - no reasonable local authority would have placed him back with his parents. Jake was awarded £25,000 for the physical injuries caused by the abuse he suffered at home. Doncaster appealed and the Court of Appeal gave its judgment in December 2008 – the law lords accepted the trial judge’s ruling that Doncaster had indeed been negligent and had exposed our client to abuse and neglect when a child by his parents.

Foster parents sell house to meet compensation payment

We acted for two brothers who alleged they had been physically and emotionally abused by their foster parents when living in London and Norfolk. Before trial, the foster parents agreed to settle the claims but without an admission of liability. Due to late payment of the agreed sums, we had to obtain court orders against the foster parents who eventually had to sell one of their houses to meet the damages and costs owed.

Landmark judgment on 'close connection' to employment

When is an employer responsible for the actions of its child abusing employee? We took a precedent- setting case to the Court of Appeal on this issue in 2006. The law states that in order for an employer to be liable in compensation for the actions of a paedophile that they employed, there has to be a ‘close connection’ to their employment: That can be in terms of what they do in their job (if they are employed to look after kids, and abuse that trust, then their employer is liable) and also in terms of where the abuse occurs. Our client was sexually assaulted by his school teacher who had taken him off the school premises to abuse him out of school hours. The Defendants argued that this was not closely connected to the teacher’s employment. The Court of Appeal however accepted that the teacher looked after pupils, and that he used his time with our client at school to groom him for the abuse, and arrange their after school meetings. The Local Authority lost the point, and our client was allowed to pursue his claim for damages against them.

Leicester City Council pay out £400,000

Bolt Burdon Kemp represented five out of seven children (now adults) who were abused by a DJ at the Granby Halls roller skating rink in Leicester between 1978 and 1999. Leicester City Council paid £400,000 in compensation and legal costs and orders settling the action were signed off by the High Court in London in July 2008. Barry Spencer worked at Granby Halls from the 1960’s until it shut in 1998. He was jailed for 15 years in January 2006 after admitting 69 sexual assaults on 15 girls and one boy. Since then, some of his victims had been fighting for compensation from the Council that employed him. Leicester denied liability from the word go, and whilst settlement was obtained without a formal admission of liability, the Council’s insurers would not have paid the money without a strong case to answer. Publicity for the plight of Spencer’s victims in the Leicester Mercury newspaper was crucial to tracing witnesses and a Freedom of Information Act request for relevant documents, as well as time spent going through the Leicester Council archives was time well spent in building the case against Spencer’s employers.

Victory in case against the Catholic Church

Bolt Burdon Kemp successfully acted in a case against the Catholic Church for a man who was allegedly abused as a child by Catholic priests at a seminary in the North of England in the 1970's.

The case - Thompson v Archbishop of Liverpool - was complicated because the priests' actions had been investigated by the police but they had not faced criminal charges. This meant that to prove the abuse, our client would have had to take the witness stand in the civil trial, and it would have been his word against the priests'. This also impacted on limitation or the time limits within which our client should have taken proceedings. Without a criminal conviction, it would have been more difficult for Mr Thompson to have convinced the court that a fair trial was still possible, out of time. The Archbishop had fought this by appealing a decision of a procedural judge last year, not to allow the Defendants to have a hearing on the time limit first, before any other evidence was heard. The Archbishop lost the appeal in the High Court, and his attempt to involve the Court of Appeal was rejected by two Lord Justices. When the Archbishop's chances of overturning the decision ran out, his solicitors commenced negotiations to settle the claim, which ultimately our client accepted.

The settlement of the case was a great victory for our client, who had the courage to come forward and tell his story despite suffering serious psychological problems caused by the abuse he allegedly suffered. For the Archbishop to have agreed to pay compensation would suggest that he accepted there was substance in our client's allegations. Mr Thompson hopes to use his damages to open a cafe in Australia where he now lives and we wish him and his family all the very best for the future in this new venture.

Other notable successes........

.... where we are not restricted from "naming and shaming" the defendants are set out below:-

• The London Borough of Greenwich formally admitted liability for their neglect of a client who was sexually and physically abused by one of their employees. They paid out £65,000 in damages plus costs a month before trial.
• We represented several clients who joined the St Leonard 's Cottage Homes Group Litigation against the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, winning £200,000 in compensation.
• The London Borough of Hillingdon paid out £35,000 to a client whom we represented under a "no win, no fee" agreement; so our fees were paid by the Borough too.
• The London Borough of Lambeth had to pay damages of £65,000 to a client who was abused in one of their children's homes by his swimming instructor.