137:'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".' The case was remitted to the High Court for the judge to reconsider in the light the House of Lords speeches.
85:, 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
76:
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
36:
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, which created an exception to the three year limitation period for "any action for damages for
132:
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
119:
Hoare was released in 2005. He received death threats as a result of his notoriety; in 2006, a man was jailed indefinitely for threatening to kill Hoare. Hoare's victim, Shirley
Woodman, waived her right to anonymity in 2012, when she received an
77:
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 1 WLR 2320."
100:, 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
112:. The victim was awarded £50,000 in compensation, and Hoare was required to pay costs for both sides of around £800,000. Hoare challenged the ruling in the
92:
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
220:
44:
AC 498, S v W FLR 862, the words "negligence, nuisance or breach of duty" were construed in such a way as to exclude sexual assault.
193:
392:
245:
145:
86:
121:
387:
113:
382:
364:
208:
164:
275:
300:
190:
8:
97:
26:
325:
134:
253:
221:"The impact of the'Lottery Rapist'case on Limitation in Clinical Negligence Claims"
197:
101:
53:
30:
179:
376:
48:
was criticised as being unfair to claimants, notably by the Law
Commission.
276:"UK | England | West Yorkshire | 'Lottery rapist' freed from jail"
60:
in favour of what the judges considered to be a fairer approach.
82:
93:
22:
301:"UK | England | Tyne | 'Lotto rapist' threats man jailed"
81:
The perpetrator, Iorworth Hoare, a
British national from
326:"Lotto winning rapist's victim Shirley Woodman gets MBE"
108:. The House of Lords overturned this decision in
374:
68:The judgment summarized the facts as follows:
37:negligence, nuisance or breach of duty."
352:KR v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd
375:
191:Law Commission Consultation Paper 151
146:Court of Appeal of England and Wales
87:Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
13:
14:
404:
246:"One Crown Office Row - Article"
393:2008 in United Kingdom case law
358:
355:QB 1441 per LJ Auld at para 100
344:
104:in 2006, following the case of
318:
293:
268:
238:
213:
202:
184:
173:
158:
140:This decision was followed in
114:European Court of Human Rights
52:overruled the judgment of the
1:
151:
63:
365:per Lord Hoffmann at para 25
209:per Lord Hoffmann at para 26
7:
127:
10:
409:
142:Field v British Coal Corp
116:, but was unsuccessful.
21:, UKHL 6, is a leading
225:www.thompsons.law.co.uk
196:April 21, 2009, at the
144:, EWCA Civ 912 by the
79:
388:English tort case law
70:
40:In the earlier case,
383:House of Lords cases
180:Limitation Act 1980
98:Limitation Act 1980
256:on 26 October 2016
135:intentional torts
124:for her actions.
29:, decided by the
400:
367:
362:
356:
348:
342:
341:
339:
337:
322:
316:
315:
313:
311:
297:
291:
290:
288:
286:
272:
266:
265:
263:
261:
252:. Archived from
242:
236:
235:
233:
231:
217:
211:
206:
200:
188:
182:
177:
171:
162:
106:Stubbings v Webb
58:Stubbings v Webb
46:Stubbings v Webb
42:Stubbings v Webb
408:
407:
403:
402:
401:
399:
398:
397:
373:
372:
371:
370:
363:
359:
349:
345:
335:
333:
332:. 14 March 2012
324:
323:
319:
309:
307:
299:
298:
294:
284:
282:
274:
273:
269:
259:
257:
244:
243:
239:
229:
227:
219:
218:
214:
207:
203:
198:Wayback Machine
189:
185:
178:
174:
163:
159:
154:
130:
102:Court of Appeal
66:
12:
11:
5:
406:
396:
395:
390:
385:
369:
368:
357:
343:
317:
292:
267:
237:
212:
201:
183:
172:
156:
155:
153:
150:
129:
126:
65:
62:
54:House of Lords
31:House of Lords
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
405:
394:
391:
389:
386:
384:
381:
380:
378:
366:
361:
354:
353:
347:
331:
327:
321:
306:
302:
296:
281:
277:
271:
255:
251:
247:
241:
226:
222:
216:
210:
205:
199:
195:
192:
187:
181:
176:
170:
169:
168:
161:
157:
149:
147:
143:
138:
136:
125:
123:
117:
115:
111:
107:
103:
99:
95:
90:
88:
84:
78:
75:
69:
61:
59:
55:
51:
47:
43:
38:
34:
32:
28:
24:
20:
19:
360:
351:
350:
346:
334:. Retrieved
329:
320:
308:. Retrieved
304:
295:
283:. Retrieved
279:
270:
258:. Retrieved
254:the original
250:www.1cor.com
249:
240:
228:. Retrieved
224:
215:
204:
186:
175:
166:
165:
160:
141:
139:
131:
118:
109:
105:
91:
80:
73:
71:
67:
57:
49:
45:
41:
39:
35:
17:
16:
15:
336:29 November
310:29 November
285:29 November
260:29 November
230:29 November
96:set by the
27:British law
377:Categories
152:References
64:Background
167:A v Hoare
110:A v Hoare
74:A v Hoare
50:A v Hoare
33:in 2008.
18:A v Hoare
330:BBC News
305:BBC News
280:BBC News
194:Archived
128:Decision
25:case in
83:Leeds
338:2016
312:2016
287:2016
262:2016
232:2016
94:tort
72:"In
23:tort
122:MBE
56:in
379::
328:.
303:.
278:.
248:.
223:.
148:.
89:.
340:.
314:.
289:.
264:.
234:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.