The two claimants sought damages for alleged sexual abuse by one Father M between 1979 and 1986. The defendants were sued as personal representatives of the bishop then responsible for the diocese in which M worked as a priest. The defendants accepted (in effect on behalf of the local Roman Catholic Church) that the bishop was vicariously liable for such acts of abuse as might be established but argued that the alleged acts could not now be proved to the requisite standard of proof. They were alleged to have taken place at least thirty years previously; any testimony was now unreliable; and it was difficult to assess fairly such testimony as could be given.

It was accepted that the primary limitation period had expired and to extend it was a matter for the unfettered discretion of the court under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980. The circumstances of the case were complex and Langstaff J was not prepared to allow an extension. Even if he had thought the evidence sufficient to satisfy the burden and standard of proof, such were the difficulties caused by the delay in taking action that the court should not exercise its discretion to permit the claim to continue. The application was refused. [Frank Cranmer]