LBA v St Hugh of Lincoln RC Primary School Governors and Another

In the recent case of LBA v St Hugh of Lincoln RC Primary School Governors and another [2024] EWHC 1502 (KB), the High Court was asked whether the claim brought against the defendant school was an abuse of process. 

Facts of the Case

The Claimant alleged that they had been sexually abused by a priest between October 1993 and 1995.   The alleged abuse was perpetrated during school hours and at weekends. 

At the time of the abuse, the Claimant was a parishioner of St Hugh of Lincoln Roman Catholic Church and a pupil at St Hugh of Lincoln Roman Catholic Primary School.  This school was operated by the defendants.

Initially, proceedings were brought solely against the Bishop of Salford, who it was alleged was vicariously liable for the priest’s behaviour.  However, during the course of these proceedings, it transpired that school staff had been aware of the priest “behaving in a sexually inappropriate manner with pupils of the school” in 1994 and 1995.   This led the Claimant pursuing an additional claim against the defendant school in negligence in June 2022. 

The claim against the Bishop of Salford was settled; agreed damages and costs were payable by a consent order dated 9 August 2022. The claim against the defendant school continued.

Judgment

The defendants applied to strike out the claim made against them under CPR 3.4(2)(a). The defendants’ principal argument was that the Claimant had already received compensation from the Bishop of Salford relating to the “same damage.”   

The application was refused.  It was held that the legal basis of the claims made against the Bishop of Salford and the defendants were distinct. One was sued in vicarious liability, the other in negligence. Further, the individual harm of each assault was distinct.  The defendants had not acted together. They were independent tortfeasors, ‘arguably liable for different damage.’ 

It was also important to note the wording of the consent order of August 2022, which set out that it covered losses for the so called “weekend abuse”, with what was referred to as “school abuse” carved out, to be pursued as against the defendants.

Forbes Comment

The wording of the consent order in this case was very clear, and giving effect to that order meant that the claim against the Bishop of Salford was settled, in respect of abuse for which he was liable, but with the abuse involving the school thereby excluded.

In any case involving multiple defendants, great care must be taken to ensure that any agreement to pay compensation is limited solely to the abuse for which that defendant is liable. After all, that defendant should only be settling that portion of the claim which was legally attributable to them.

In addition, it follows that where a claim is pursued against several defendants, before settling such claims, it is essential to assess the relationship between those defendants to establish whether distinct claims have been made against each defendant, or whether the allegations relate to the ‘same damage.’