Abstract

The claimants brought civil suits against child care institutions and authorities for the sexual abuse to which they were subject whilst under the defendants’ responsibility. These cases were not initiated until the claimants were well into adulthood and began recognising the harms they had suffered, and as a result, their claims were time-barred at first instance. However, after A v Hoare (and Other Appeals), in which the House of Lords significantly altered the laws on limitation, their cases were reheard and allowed to proceed. In this respect, AB and Others v Nugent Care Society; GR v Wirral MBC demonstrates the benefits of the ruling in Hoare; but at the same time, this note argues that the Court of Appeal utilises a problematic conceptualisation of the harm of sexual abuse and the case highlights the potential for inconsistency and uncertainty in such delayed claims following the decision in Hoare—which is not the panacea it initially appears to be