School Claim

Preamble

Claims against schools generally involve wrongdoings committed by a member of staff, usually a teacher, caretaker or learning support assistant. In England and Wales, there are two main structures, schools that are maintained by a Local Education Authority and funded by the Government; and those that are privately run and known as independent schools.   When an independent school closes, it should have insurance which indemnifies the school against claims long after its closure. However, in the past some schools were privately owned and run by an individual and an insurer is hard to trace. This is particularly relevant where the school's owner was also the perpetrator as insurance rarely indemnifies an owner for their own criminal acts. The only avenue for compensation in these circumstances is against the individual abuser, but it is only worth pursuing them if they have plenty of assets to pay compensation or meet a judgment. Generally, in the case of an Academy or LEA run school, there is insurance to cover staff wrongdoings. Similarly for the majority of schools in the private sector they now know the importance of maintaining insurance to cover this risk.

The legal principle applied to bring a claim against school is termed vicarious liability. This means that the school is legally liable to compensate a victim for the wrongdoings of their staff. Following a decision in the Supreme Court in 2023, (Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah's witnesses -v- BXB),   the test for vicarious liability has been considered afresh. There is a two-stage test which must be satisfied in order for a claim brought in vicarious liability to succeed. In a nutshell not only does the defendant have to employ the perpetrator, or engage him in a relationship akin to employment, but the wrongful conduct must also be closely connected to what the perpetrator was authorised to do.  The wrongdoings must therefore be committed whilst the perpetrator is carrying out activities on behalf of the defendant.  In simple terms a teacher employed to educate children who then goes on to abuse their position and sexually assault a child in their class, will pass the two-stage test and the school will be vicariously liable for their wrongdoing.  However, if a teacher abuses a pupil they meet casually in town and there is no `teacher/pupil relationship’, the school is unlikely to be liable.  

The case

The claimant was a young boy who suffered sexual abuse over a five-year period at the hands of his learning support assistant at his primary school.  The abuse took place both on and off the school premises. The perpetrator was convicted  at Crown Court and the claimant was a named victim. Where a perpetrator is convicted this makes it very difficult for the defendant to avoid a claim for compensation. The benefit of a conviction is that the offences are then proved in the Crown Court and there can be no doubt the victim was abused as they describe. One issue we face is when the CPS only pursue certain charges because they are satisfied a conviction can be obtained when in fact there are numerous incidents of sexual abuse that the CPS do not think will be proved “beyond all reasonable doubt’ and satisfy the criminal test of culpability.  In these situations all the allegations of abuse are included in the civil claim, but some defendants will try and argue that they are only liable for the offences for which the offender has been convicted and are cited on the Certificate of Conviction and Indictment which are the documents produced by the Crown Court following sentencing.

In this case the abuse had serious long-term implications on the claimant's mental health and affected his career choices. He was assessed by our expert psychiatrist who diagnosed complex PTSD. The claimant also had other medical complications caused by his abuse which required expert evidence from a consultant neurologist. Whilst the Claimant was still able to attend University, he had to abandon his initial career choices as he did not gain a place at his first university choice as his A ‘level results were affected by his depression. The Claimant had also acted as a child and because the abuse had affected his self-confidence and self-esteem, he was no longer able to perform under the spotlight and he had to abandon his acting career.  A specialist barrister was instructed to help to prepare the claimant’s schedule of his financial losses (his claim for special damages) and to help advise the claimant on the value of his claim (or quantum). Proceedings were issued in the High Court as the defendants were slow to make offers of settlement.  An application for anonymity was made so that the Claimant could not be identified in the High Court proceedings.  Having issued proceedings, the defendant did then make offers of settlement.  The settlement included a substantial award for the claimants past and future loss of earnings in addition to his compensation for his pain and suffering known as `general damages’. Furthermore, the Claimant also required extensive care to keep him safe following the abuse and there was also a claim submitted on behalf of his parents as they had to take time off work to care for him whilst he was mentally unwell.