A v Hoare

Last updated

A v Hoare, [2008] UKHL 6, [1] is a leading tort case in British law, decided by the House of Lords in 2008.

Contents

The Lords held that the limitation period for actions founded on torts of negligence may be disapplied where it is inequitable to enforce it. This case centred on the wording of the Limitation Act 1980, [2] which created an exception to the three year limitation period for "any action for damages for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty."

In the earlier case, Stubbings v Webb [1993] AC 498, S v W [1995] FLR 862, the words "negligence, nuisance or breach of duty" were construed in such a way as to exclude sexual assault. Stubbings v Webb was criticised as being unfair to claimants, notably by the Law Commission. [3] A v Hoare overruled the judgment of the House of Lords in Stubbings v Webb in favour of what the judges considered to be a fairer approach.

Background

The judgment summarized the facts as follows:

"In A v Hoare the defendant was convicted in 1989 of an attempted rape of the claimant, involving a serious and traumatic sexual assault; he was sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2004, while still serving his sentence, he won £7m on the national lottery. The claimant started proceedings for damages on 22 December 2004 but Master Eyre, applying Stubbings, struck out the action as barred under section 2 of the 1980 Act. This decision was affirmed by the judge and the Court of Appeal [2006] 1 WLR 2320." [4]

The perpetrator, Iorworth Hoare, a British national from Leeds, had previously been convicted of a series of sex attacks between 1973 and 1987, for which he had received prison sentences totalling 18 years. As he was penniless as of his final conviction in 1989, the victim did not pursue a civil action for damages against him but claimed compensation of £5,000 from the government by way of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

In December 2004, within a few months of Hoare's lottery win becoming public, 16 years after the crime, and well outside the six-year time limit for tort set by the Limitation Act 1980, the victim pursued a civil action for damages against Hoare personally. This claim was struck out for being out of time by the High Court, in 2005, and by the Court of Appeal in 2006, following the case of Stubbings v Webb. The House of Lords overturned this decision in A v Hoare. The victim was awarded £50,000 in compensation, and Hoare was required to pay costs for both sides of around £800,000. [5] Hoare challenged the ruling in the European Court of Human Rights, but was unsuccessful. [6]

Hoare was released in 2005. [7] He received death threats as a result of his notoriety; in 2006, a man was jailed indefinitely for threatening to kill Hoare. [8] Hoare's victim, Shirley Woodman, waived her right to anonymity in 2012, when she received an MBE for her actions. [9]

Decision

The House of Lords held that the words "negligence, nuisance or breach of duty" could be construed to include sexual assault and thus bring them within the s33 discretion to disapply the limitation period for claims. Lord Hoffmann reasoned that s33 had caused victims of intentional torts 'the need to frame a claim in one or other of these ways when the real cause of complaint was sexual abuse for which the employer was vicariously liable was causing "arid and highly wasteful litigation turning on a distinction of no apparent principle or other merit". [10] ' [11] The case was remitted to the High Court for the judge to reconsider in the light the House of Lords speeches.

This decision was followed in Field v British Coal Corp, [2008] EWCA Civ 912 by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales.

Related Research Articles

At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognised at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognised for the award of damages.

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.

A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.

Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, are damages assessed in order to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct and/or to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive all or some of the punitive damages in award.

Tort law in Australia is substantively similar to that of other common law jurisdictions, especially at a foundational level. This is due to the legal system of Australia having been derived from the UK, like most other common law nations around the globe.

In some common law jurisdictions, contributory negligence is a defense to a tort claim based on negligence. If it is available, the defense completely bars plaintiffs from any recovery if they contribute to their own injury through their own negligence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English tort law</span> Branch of English law concerning civil wrongs

English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.

<i>Rylands v Fletcher</i> Landmark House of Lords decision on tort law

Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 is a leading decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law. It established the rule that one's non-natural use of their land, which leads to another's land being damaged as a result of dangerous things emanating from the land, is strictly liable.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Personal injury</span>

Personal injury is a legal term for an injury to the body, mind, or emotions, as opposed to an injury to property. In common law jurisdictions the term is most commonly used to refer to a type of tort lawsuit in which the person bringing the suit has suffered harm to his or her body or mind. Personal injury lawsuits are filed against the person or entity that caused the harm through negligence, gross negligence, reckless conduct, or intentional misconduct, and in some cases on the basis of strict liability. Different jurisdictions describe the damages in different ways, but damages typically include the injured person's medical bills, pain and suffering, and diminished quality of life.

Causation in English law concerns the legal tests of remoteness, causation and foreseeability in the tort of negligence. It is also relevant for English criminal law and English contract law.

Loss of chance in English law refers to a particular problem of causation, which arises in tort and contract. The law is invited to assess hypothetical outcomes, either affecting the claimant or a third party, where the defendant's breach of contract or of the duty of care for the purposes of negligence deprived the claimant of the opportunity to obtain a benefit and/or avoid a loss. For these purposes, the remedy of damages is normally intended to compensate for the claimant's loss of expectation. The general rule is that while a loss of chance is compensable when the chance was something promised on a contract it is not generally so in the law of tort, where most cases thus far have been concerned with medical negligence in the public health system.

Breaking the chain refers in English law to the idea that causal connections are deemed to finish. Even if the defendant can be shown to have acted negligently, there will be no liability if some new intervening act breaks the chain of causation between that negligence and the loss or damage sustained by the claimant.

In the English law of negligence, the acts of the claimant may give the defendant a defence to liability, whether in whole or part, if those acts unreasonably add to the loss.

In English law, a nervous shock is a psychiatric / mental illness or injury inflicted upon a person by intentional or negligent actions or omissions of another. Often it is a psychiatric disorder triggered by witnessing an accident, for example an injury caused to one's parents or spouse. Although the term "nervous shock" has been described as "inaccurate" and "misleading", it continues to be applied as a useful abbreviation for a complex concept. The possibility of recovering damages for nervous shock, particularly caused by negligence, is strongly limited in English law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tort reform</span> Legal reforms aimed at reducing tort litigation

Tort reform refers to changes in the civil justice system in common law countries that aim to reduce the ability of plaintiffs to bring tort litigation or to reduce damages they can receive. Such changes are generally justified under the grounds that litigation is an inefficient means to compensate plaintiffs; that tort law permits frivolous or otherwise undesirable litigation to crowd the court system; or that the fear of litigation can serve to curtail innovation, raise the cost of consumer goods or insurance premiums for suppliers of services, and increase legal costs for businesses. Tort reform has primarily been prominent in common law jurisdictions, where criticism of judge-made rules regarding tort actions manifests in calls for statutory reform by the legislature.

<i>Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd</i>

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22 is a leading case on causation in English tort law. It concerned malignant mesothelioma, a deadly disease caused by breathing asbestos fibres. The House of Lords approved the test of "materially increasing risk" of harm, as a deviation in some circumstances from the ordinary "balance of probabilities" test under the "but for" standard.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to tort law in common law jurisdictions:

Nuisance in English law is an area of tort law broadly divided into two torts; private nuisance, where the actions of the defendant are "causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a [claimant]'s land or his/her use or enjoyment of that land", and public nuisance, where the defendant's actions "materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty's subjects"; public nuisance is also a crime. Both torts have been present from the time of Henry III, being affected by a variety of philosophical shifts through the years which saw them become first looser and then far more stringent and less protecting of an individual's rights. Each tort requires the claimant to prove that the defendant's actions caused interference, which was unreasonable, and in some situations the intention of the defendant may also be taken into account. A significant difference is that private nuisance does not allow a claimant to claim for any personal injury suffered, while public nuisance does.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tort law in India</span> Aspect of Indian law

Tort law in India is primarily governed by judicial precedent as in other common law jurisdictions, supplemented by statutes governing damages, civil procedure, and codifying common law torts. As in other common law jurisdictions, a tort is breach of a non-contractual duty which has caused damage to the plaintiff giving rise to a civil cause of action and for which remedy is available. If a remedy does not exist, a tort has not been committed since the rationale of tort law is to provide a remedy to the person who has been wronged.

The civil liability of a recreational diver may include a duty of care to another diver during a dive. Breach of this duty that is a proximate cause of injury or loss to the other diver may lead to civil litigation for damages in compensation for the injury or loss suffered.

References

  1. ↑ A v Hoare
  2. ↑ Limitation Act 1980
  3. ↑ Law Commission Consultation Paper 151 Archived April 21, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
  4. ↑ per Lord Hoffmann at para 26
  5. ↑ "The impact of the'Lottery Rapist'case on Limitation in Clinical Negligence Claims". www.thompsons.law.co.uk. Retrieved 29 November 2016.
  6. ↑ "One Crown Office Row - Article". www.1cor.com. Archived from the original on 26 October 2016. Retrieved 29 November 2016.
  7. ↑ "UK | England | West Yorkshire | 'Lottery rapist' freed from jail". BBC News. Retrieved 29 November 2016.
  8. ↑ "UK | England | Tyne | 'Lotto rapist' threats man jailed". BBC News. Retrieved 29 November 2016.
  9. ↑ "Lotto winning rapist's victim Shirley Woodman gets MBE". BBC News. 14 March 2012. Retrieved 29 November 2016.
  10. ↑ KR v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd [2003] QB 1441 per LJ Auld at para 100
  11. ↑ per Lord Hoffmann at para 25
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.