A v Hoare [2008] EWHC 1573 (QB) (08 July 2008)

A woman subjected to a serious sexual assault sought to claim damages from her attacker many years later, after he won the lottery. Her claim was outside the normal time limit. The court allowed the claim to proceed, finding the defendant's new wealth was a key factor.

Facts

The claimant, ‘A’, was the victim of a serious sexual assault, including rape, committed by the first defendant, Mr Hoare, in October 1988. In 1989, Mr Hoare was convicted of attempted rape and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was released on licence in 2005. The claimant suffered severe and long-lasting psychological trauma as a result of the assault, including post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, which significantly impacted her life and ability to work. In August 2004, while still in prison, Mr Hoare won approximately £7 million on the National Lottery. The claimant became aware of this win in late 2004. She commenced proceedings for damages for personal injury in December 2006, well outside the six-year limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act 1980.

Issues

The central legal issue was whether the court should exercise its discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the limitation period set out in section 11 of the Act. This required the court to balance the prejudice that the claimant would suffer if her action was statute-barred against the prejudice that the defendant would suffer if the action were allowed to proceed after such a long delay.

Judgment

Mr Justice Jack, sitting in the Queen’s Bench Division, granted the claimant’s application and directed that the limitation period should be disapplied. The judgment centred on a careful application of the factors set out in section 33(3) of the Limitation Act 1980.

Reasoning of the Court

The judge considered the following key factors:

• Reasons for the delay: The judge accepted that the claimant’s severe psychological condition following the assault provided a compelling reason for her not bringing the claim sooner. He also noted that, prior to the defendant’s lottery win, any claim would have been pointless as the defendant had no assets from which to pay damages.
• Effect of the delay on evidence: The judge found that the forensic prejudice to the defendant was minimal. The core facts of the assault were not in dispute, having been established by the criminal conviction. Medical evidence concerning the claimant’s psychological injuries was well-documented over the years.
• Prejudice to the claimant: If the claim were not allowed to proceed, the claimant would be deprived of the opportunity to recover substantial compensation for the ‘dreadful and continuing injury’ she had suffered.
• Prejudice to the defendant: The defendant argued that he would suffer prejudice from the ‘stale’ nature of the claim and the disruption to his life now he was a man of means. The judge dismissed the argument regarding evidence (as noted above). Crucially, the judge addressed the financial prejudice directly, stating that the defendant’s newfound wealth was a central factor. He noted:
  

  In my judgment the balance comes down clearly and firmly in favour of the claimant. It would be an affront to justice that the claimant should not be able to recover the very substantial damages to which she is in principle entitled for the dreadful and continuing injury which she has suffered, because of the passage of time, from a defendant who can now pay that sum without any real hardship to himself.

  The judge concluded that the defendant’s ability to pay without hardship, coupled with the fact that a claim was only truly viable after his win, weighed heavily in the claimant’s favour. The prejudice to the claimant in being denied compensation for her severe injuries far outweighed the prejudice to the defendant in having to pay damages out of his significant winnings.

Implications

The decision in A v Hoare is a significant authority on the court’s discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980. It establishes that a defendant’s subsequent and substantial change in financial circumstances, such as a lottery win, is a highly relevant consideration when the court conducts the balancing exercise between the prejudice to the claimant and the defendant. The case underscores that the purpose of the Limitation Act is not to protect a wrongdoer from paying just compensation where they are well able to do so and the delay has not significantly impacted the fairness of a trial. It highlights the court’s willingness to exercise its discretion to achieve justice in cases of intentional torts, particularly where the claimant’s delay is linked to the trauma of the defendant’s wrongful act.

Verdict: The preliminary issue was determined in favour of the claimant. The court directed under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 that the limitation period should not apply to her action.

Source: A v Hoare [2008] EWHC 1573 (QB) (08 July 2008)