KHX v Isle of Wight Council [2026] EWHC 1949 (KB)

[2026] EWHC 1949 (KB)Case No KB-2024-003388
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate 30 July 2026
Before
MS JUSTICE OBI
Between
KHXClaimantIsle of Wight CouncilDefendant
Mr Justin Levinson (instructed by Bolt Burdon Kemp) for ClaimantMr James Weston (instructed by Browne Jacobson LLP) for DefendantHearing Hearing dates: 14-15 July 2026
Approved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down remotely at 2pm on 30 July 2026 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives..............................MS JUSTICE OBI
[1]The Claimant has been granted anonymity to prevent disclosure of his identity. He is therefore referred to as “KHX”. To reduce the risk of jigsaw identification, KHX’s partner has also been anonymised. She will be referred to in this judgment as “LXA”.[2]KHX brings proceedings against the Isle of Wight Council ("the Defendant") arising out of his placement as a child in the Defendant's care. The claim concerns events alleged to have occurred at Richmond Row Children's Home ("Richmond Row" or “the home”) at Brading on the Isle of Wight during the 1980s. KHX alleges that, whilst resident at Richmond Row, he was subjected to physical abuse by Michael Bucket and sexual abuse by Lorraine Moorse, both of whom were employed by the Defendant as residential care workers.[3]This judgment concerns both limitation and liability. The Defendant does not rely upon a limitation defence in relation to the allegations of sexual abuse. It accepts that those allegations fall within the new regime introduced by section 11ZA of the Limitation Act 1980 and does not seek their dismissal pursuant to section 11ZB. It contends, however, that the sexual abuse allegations are untrue and should be rejected on the facts. By contrast, the Defendant relies upon a limitation defence in relation to the allegation of physical abuse against Mr Bucket. Mr Bucket died on 14 December 2025.[4]It is common ground that, if KHX proves the alleged abuse, the Defendant would be vicariously liable for any tortious acts committed by Mr Bucket or Ms Moorse in the course of their employment.[5]At its core, the issue is whether the Court can be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, notwithstanding the passage of time, that the abuse alleged by KHX took place.

Background

[6]There is no material dispute as to the broad chronology of KHX's childhood care history, his placement at Richmond Row, the employment of Mr Bucket and Ms Moorse by the Defendant, the reporting of allegations to the police in 1998 and 2021, or the procedural history of these proceedings.[7]The background circumstances may be summarised as follows.

Care History

[8]KHX was born in June 1974. He is now 52. Concerns regarding his welfare arose from an early age. Social services records reveal a history of involvement with the family dating back to infancy, including concerns about physical abuse and neglect. On 23 July 1976, KHX was received into the care of the Defendant. In September 1976, a final care order was made in respect of KHX. Throughout his childhood various supportive and protective interventions were undertaken.[9]In March 1984, following recommendations made by professionals involved in KHX's care, he was admitted to Richmond Row which was a children's home owned and managed by the Defendant. KHX was aged 9 at the time of this placement. Although Richmond Row became KHX’s principal residence, there were periods when he returned to the family home and periods when he attended boarding school. Nevertheless, Richmond Row remained the central feature of his care arrangements during the period material to this claim.[10]Richmond Row was a single dwelling resulting from the conversion of three houses and accommodated a number of children of varying ages. It was staffed by male and female residential care workers and was subject to the management, policies, and oversight arrangements then in place within the Defendant's social services department. KHX remained a resident at Richmond Row until early 1990.[11]Mr Bucket was employed by the Defendant as a residential care worker at Richmond Row throughout the entirety of KHX's placement there. Ms Moorse was employed by the Defendant at Richmond Row between 1986 and 1990.

Post-Care History

[12]Shortly before KHX’s 16th birthday, he moved to Nettlestone House, a supported accommodation placement in the Isle of Wight for young people leaving care. It was at Nettlestone House that KHX met Christopher Fay.[13]As an adolescent and young adult KHX moved intermittently between the Isle of Wight and Eastbourne for about four years. He experienced periods of unemployment, substance misuse, and offending behaviour, and spent periods in custody from 1991. In later adulthood he formed a long-term relationship with LXA and has obtained more stable employment.

Reports to Police

[14]In October 1998, while KHX was serving a prison sentence, police officers investigating allegations of historic abuse at Richmond Row visited KHX in prison. During that interview he made allegations concerning both physical abuse by Mr Bucket and sexual abuse by Ms Moorse. The subsequent police investigation focused on the allegations against Ms Moorse. She was arrested and interviewed under caution in January 1999 and denied the allegations. By letters dated 26 January 1999 and 10 February 1999, Hampshire Constabulary informed Ms Moorse and KHX respectively that no further police action would be taken.[15]In 2021 KHX made a further report to the police concerning the alleged sexual abuse by Ms Moorse. That report led to a review of the earlier investigation, including consideration of historic records and further enquiries. It was concluded that the matter had previously been investigated, no new offences or evidence had been reported, and that the appropriate outcome was no further action.[16]No contemporaneous document before the Court records a complaint of physical abuse by Mr Bucket or sexual abuse by Ms Moorse during KHX’s residence at Richmond Row. The earliest detailed accounts available are therefore those provided by KHX during the 1998-1999 police investigation.

Procedural History

[17]By letter before claim dated 17 March 2023, KHX advanced claims for damages arising out of the alleged abuse whilst resident at Richmond Row. These proceedings were issued on 8 October 2024. On 14 October 2024, Master Eastman granted anonymity. The Claim Form, Particulars of Claim, and the psychiatric report of Professor Tom Burns, Consultant Psychiatrist were served in December 2024. The Defendant served the Defence on 10 February 2025, denying the allegations and advancing a limitation defence. KHX served a Reply on 24 February 2025.[18]Following a case management conference, Master Eastman made directions on 2 July 2025 for disclosure, witness evidence, expert evidence and trial preparation. Witness statements were exchanged in late 2025. KHX served evidence from himself, his partner, LXA, and Christopher Fay. The Defendant served a witness statement from Ms Moorse.[19]On the Defendant's application, the court made orders in January and February 2026 requiring disclosure from Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary pursuant to CPR 31.17. That disclosure comprised material relating to the 1998-1999 police investigation, including the record of Ms Moorse’s interview under caution and contemporaneous records concerning the outcome of that investigation.[20]By consent order, dated 23 March 2026, subsequently reflected in an order sealed on 10 April 2026, the Defendant was granted permission to rely upon the hearsay evidence of Mr Bucket. Mr Bucket died before a final signed witness statement could be obtained from him.

Particulars of Claim

[21]The allegations of physical and sexual abuse are pleaded as follows; “a) [Mr] Bucket physically assaulted [KHX] on many occasions by banging him against a wall, throwing him downstairs, manhandling [KHX] into a bath causing him to scald his foot on a hot tap, hitting [KHX] and kicking [KHX] including to his head. b) [Ms] Moorse sexually assaulted [KHX] by entering the bathroom while he was bathing, washing his back in the bath, masturbating his penis while in the bath, in his bed and in a toilet on a train and requiring [KHX]to touch her vagina.”[22]KHX alleges that, as a consequence of the abuse, he suffered pain, injury, humiliation, and hurt to his feelings and psychiatric difficulties. He does not contend that he suffers from a recognised psychiatric disorder. He relies upon the report of Professor Burns and seeks general damages, aggravated damages, interest pursuant to section 35A Senior Courts Act 1981 and costs. There is no claim for special damages.

Issues to be Determined

[23]The principal issues to be determined are as follows: i. Which limitation regime applies to the physical abuse allegations against Mr Bucket - sections 11ZA and 11ZB of the Limitation Act 1980 or sections 11 and 33 of the Limitation Act 1980? ii. If section 11ZA applies should those allegations be dismissed pursuant to section 11ZB? Alternatively, if section 11 applies should the discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 be exercised in favour of KHX? iii. Has KHX proved that he was subjected to physical assaults by Mr Bucket whilst resident at Richmond Row? If so, to what extent? iv. Has KHX proved that he was subjected to sexual abuse by Ms Moorse whilst resident at Richmond Row? If so, to what extent? v. What damages, if any, should be awarded? Legal Framework Standard and Burden of Proof

Legal Framework

[24]KHX bears the burden of proving the allegations relied upon. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The seriousness of the allegation does not alter the standard of proof.

Limitation

[25]The law governing limitation in personal injury claims is contained principally in the Limitation Act 1980 (hereafter “the Act”).[26]Section 11(1) of the Act states:
“11. - Special time limit for actions in respect of personal injuries. (1) This section applies to any action for damages for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty (whether the duty exists by virtue of a contract or of provision made by or under a statute or independently of any contract or any such provision) where the damages claimed by the plaintiff for the negligence, nuisance or breach of duty consist of or include damages in respect of personal injuries to the plaintiff or any other person. [underlining added]” (1) This section applies to any action for damages for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty (whether the duty exists by virtue of a contract or of provision made by or under a statute or independently of any contract or any such provision) where the damages claimed by the plaintiff for the negligence, nuisance or breach of duty consist of or include damages in respect of personal injuries to the plaintiff or any other person. [underlining added]”
[27]Section 11 imposes a limitation period of three years for actions in respect of personal injuries. Where the claimant was under a disability by reason of minority when the cause of action accrued, time does not begin to run until the disability ceases (see section 28 of the Act). In such circumstances, the ordinary limitation period expires three years after the claimant attains the age of 18.[28]Where proceedings are commenced outside the applicable limitation period, section 33(1) of the Act confers a discretion on the court to direct that the limitation provisions shall not apply where it appears “equitable to allow the action to proceed” having regard to the degree to which the provisions of section 11 prejudice the claimant and any decision of the court would prejudice the defendant. The court may direct that section 11 shall not apply to the action or to a specified cause of action. Section 33(3) requires the court to have regard to all the circumstances of the case and, in particular, the matters identified in sub-paragraphs (a) to (f): the length of and reasons for delay; the effect of delay upon the cogency of the evidence; the conduct of the defendant; the duration of any disability affecting the claimant; the claimant's promptness in pursuing the claim; and any steps taken to obtain medical, legal or other expert advice.[29]The principles governing the exercise of that discretion are well established. In Carroll v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2017] EWCA Civ 1992, the Court of Appeal emphasised that the discretion conferred by section 33 is broad and unfettered; that the matters specified in section 33(3) are not exhaustive; and that the court must undertake a balancing exercise directed to the prejudice which would be suffered by each party if the discretion were, or were not, exercised. In Carroll, the Court of Appeal also explained that whilst the burden rests upon the claimant to satisfy the court that it would be equitable to disapply the limitation period, a defendant who contends that delay has impaired the cogency of the evidence or caused forensic prejudice will ordinarily be expected to identify the prejudice said to have been suffered.[30]In Cain v Francis [2008] EWCA Civ 1451, the Court of Appeal observed that the mere fact of delay is not itself determinative; the focus is on the consequences of the delay. The authorities emphasise that limitation legislation exists to protect defendants from the injustice which may arise from having to meet stale claims. In Catholic Welfare Society v CD [2018] EWCA Civ 2342 the Court of Appeal stressed that fairness to the defendant remains a central consideration and that the court must examine the effect of delay upon the defendant's ability to investigate and defend the claim. In RE v GE [2015] EWCA Civ 287, Lewison LJ observed that the possibility of a fair trial may be a necessary condition for the exercise of the section 33 discretion but not necessarily a sufficient one. The court must still evaluate all relevant circumstances and determine whether, in the particular case, it is equitable to permit the claim to proceed notwithstanding the expiry of the limitation period.[31]In A v Hoare [2008] UKHL 6, the House of Lords recognised that claims arising from childhood abuse may present features not commonly encountered in other personal injury litigation. In particular, the abuse itself may contribute to delays in reporting the abuse or pursuing a civil claim. The reasons for delay and their relationship to the abuse are therefore potentially important considerations in the section 33 exercise.[32]The Court of Appeal in KR v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd [2003] QB 1441 and JL v Bowen [2017] EWCA Civ 82, emphasised the importance of examining the practical effect of delay upon the availability and cogency of the evidence. Those decisions also recognise that, where limitation and liability are determined at the same trial, care must be taken not to treat the apparent strength of a claim on the available evidence as displacing the distinct question whether delay has caused forensic prejudice in the determination of the issues. The fact that a claim appears capable of being fairly determined on the evidence available does not necessarily mean that the passage of time has caused no prejudice to the defendant. In JL, it was recognised that the death or unavailability of potentially material witnesses may constitute a significant source of forensic prejudice. The weight to be attached to such matters depends upon the circumstances of the case and their impact upon the court's ability to determine the disputed issues fairly.[33]On 29 June 2026, section 96 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 inserted sections 11ZA and 11ZB into the Act. Section 96 provides as follows:
“96 Removal of limitation period in child sexual abuse cases (1) The Limitation Act 1980 is amended as follows. (2) After section 11 insert— “11ZA Actions in respect of personal injuries attributable to child sexual abuse (1) None of the time limits given in the preceding provisions of this Act apply to an action to which this section applies. (2) This section applies to any action for damages for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty (whether the duty exists by virtue of a contract or of provision made by or under a statute or independently of any contract or any such provision) which meets conditions I to 3. (3) Condition I is that the damages claimed by the claimant consist of or include damages in respect of personal injuries to the claimant. (4) Condition 2 is that the claimant was under 18 on the date on which the cause of action accrued. (5) Condition 3 is that the act or omission to which the claimant's personal injuries were attributable constituted sexual abuse. (6) This section applies in relation to actions brought, and causes of action accrued, before (as well as after) this section comes into force. [underlining added]” (1) The Limitation Act 1980 is amended as follows. (2) After section 11 insert— “11ZA Actions in respect of personal injuries attributable to child sexual abuse (1) None of the time limits given in the preceding provisions of this Act apply to an action to which this section applies. (2) This section applies to any action for damages for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty (whether the duty exists by virtue of a contract or of provision made by or under a statute or independently of any contract or any such provision) which meets conditions I to 3. (3) Condition I is that the damages claimed by the claimant consist of or include damages in respect of personal injuries to the claimant. (4) Condition 2 is that the claimant was under 18 on the date on which the cause of action accrued. (5) Condition 3 is that the act or omission to which the claimant's personal injuries were attributable constituted sexual abuse. (6) This section applies in relation to actions brought, and causes of action accrued, before (as well as after) this section comes into force. [underlining added]”
[34]Section 11ZB provides that where an action falling within section 11ZA is brought after expiry of the limitation period which would otherwise have applied, the court must dismiss the action if the defendant satisfies the court that it is not possible for a fair hearing to take place.

The Evidence

[35]The evidence falls into four broad categories: evidence from those said to have direct knowledge of the events in issue; evidence from witnesses to whom KHX subsequently made disclosures and who observed him in later life; expert evidence; and the contemporaneous documentary record.[36]I heard oral evidence from KHX and Ms Moorse. The Defendant also relied upon hearsay evidence from Mr Bucket in the form of a draft witness statement, together with the hearsay evidence of Ms Ellis concerning the circumstances in which that statement came to be obtained. Ms Ellis did not attend court to give evidence as she was on maternity leave. I also heard evidence from Christopher Fay and LXA. Neither of these witnesses had direct knowledge of the alleged abuse. Their evidence was confined principally to disclosures said to have been made by KHX and to their observations of him in later life. KHX relied upon the expert evidence of Professor Burns. Professor Burns' opinions were informed by his assessment of KHX, his review of the available records and the factual history provided to him by KHX. The parties also relied upon a substantial body of documentary evidence.[37]The following section summarises the evidence relied upon by the parties. It should not be read as indicating any conclusion as to the reliability, accuracy or weight of that evidence. Matters arising from cross-examination, inconsistencies within or between the various accounts, the significance of the contemporaneous documents and the findings I ultimately make are addressed later in this judgment. KHX[38]KHX, in his witness statement dated 23 November 2025, described a difficult and abusive childhood which resulted in being taken into care. Whilst he regarded placement at Richmond Row as preferable to remaining at home, he stated that he was subjected to both physical abuse by Mr Bucket and sexual abuse by Ms Moorse.

Physical Abuse

[39]KHX alleged that physical violence by Mr Bucket was a regular feature of his time at Richmond Row. He described Mr Bucket as a “big, well-built man”. He alleged that he was regularly beaten and pushed around by Mr Bucket for no reason. The physical abuse would occur approximately once or twice a week and would leave KHX with bruising. There would be lots of shoving and behaviours designed to obtain a reaction such as name calling so that he could beat up KHX and the other boys. KHX's evidence was that the volatile behaviour of Mr Bucket left him in “fight or flight mode” and he would run away to avoid him.[40]In addition to the broad allegation of physical abuse KHX relied upon three specific incidents: i. The Hot Water Incident: KHX alleged that in 1987 (or thereabouts), when he was 13 years old, Mr Bucket dragged him into a bathroom and attempted to force him into a bath of hot water whilst he was still clothed. He states that Mr Bucket “held” his foot beneath a running hot tap, which caused a large blister. The following day he reported the matter to “Jeff”, the manager of Richmond Row, and asked to speak to Bill Davidson, then head of social services. He was subsequently taken to a doctor, where his foot was dressed. KHX further alleges that although a daily record should have been made of the incident, no entry was recorded and that Mr Bucket later attempted to dissuade him from pursuing the complaint by offering him a pair of expensive football boots. ii. The Sheffield Incident: KHX also relies upon an incident said to have occurred during a trip to Sheffield with other residents of Richmond Row. He alleged that Mr Bucket physically “attacked” him and pinned him to the ground. According to KHX, another member of staff, Bruce Burton, intervened and forcefully removed Mr Bucket. KHX states that a member of the public witnessed the incident and contacted the police, who attended, but no action was taken. iii. The Camping Incident: KHX refers to a camping trip with other children from Richmond Row. During this trip, he alleges that Mr Bucket sent the female staff away, announced that it was “bastard time”, and proceeded to kick the children’s tents, forcing the occupants out. KHX says that all of the children were made to stand outside in the cold whilst Mr Bucket shouted at them as punishment for having played about during the night.

Sexual Abuse

[41]The allegations against Ms Moorse concern sexual abuse said to have occurred when KHX was approximately 12 or 13 years old. This was KHX’s first sexual experience. He relied upon the following incidents: i. The Bathroom Incident: KHX alleged that the first incident occurred whilst he was taking a bath. He stated that Ms Moorse entered the bathroom and told him that she would wash him which he thought was strange as he was old enough to wash himself. Ms Moorse then touched his penis and masturbated him. ii. The Bedroom Incidents: According to KHX what began as inappropriate touching in the bathroom developed into repeated sexual activity initiated by Ms Moorse. He alleged that she masturbated him on other occasions including in his bedroom. He described the abuse in his bedroom in the following terms: “[f]ollowing on from the first incident, [Ms Moorse] would enter my bedroom at night, slide her hand under my bed clothing and masturbate me.” iii. The Car Incident: The car incident occurred when KHX was taken out by Ms Moorse in her cream-coloured Austin Allegro to pick up other children that had been to Newport. KHX alleges that Ms Moorse pulled into a lane before the pick-up took place and they masturbated each other. iv. The Train Incident: There was an occasion when Ms Moorse was accompanying KHX to his boarding school in Exeter. KHX alleged that Ms Moorse took him into a train toilet, masturbated him and made him touch and masturbate her.

Evidence Relating to Richard Willett

[42]KHX also gave evidence concerning Richard Willett, another resident at Richmond Row. KHX’s evidence was that, whilst sharing a room with Richard Willett in around 1988, Richard Willett told him that Ms Moorse had touched him sexually. Richard Willett left shortly afterwards.

Disclosure of Abuse

[43]KHX states that, as a child, he neither understood nor appreciated the significance of what was occurring, and that he accepted the conduct as something that formed part of his normal life. He did not report these matters at the time. He simply endured what was happening and attempted to get on with his life. A further reason KHX did not report Mr Bucket’s abuse is that, in 1988, Richmond Row introduced a system whereby each child was allocated a member of staff to look after their welfare and concerns. Despite KHX’s previous experiences of violence, intimidation and bullying at the hands of Mr Bucket, and despite staff being aware of the difficulties between them, Mr Bucket was allocated as his designated welfare worker. In effect, this deprived him of any trusted adult to whom he could complain.

Impact

[44]KHX stated that the abuse at Richmond Row had a profound and lasting effect upon him. He attributed many of the difficulties he experienced in adult life, including problems with trust, relationships, emotional regulation, employment and offending behaviour, to the physical and sexual abuse he suffered whilst in the Defendant's care. LXA[45]LXA gave evidence concerning the disclosures KHX had made to her and the impact the alleged abuse has had upon him in adult life. In her witness statement she stated that she had been in a relationship with KHX for 10 years. She described their relationship as having been marked by significant difficulties which she attributed, at least in part, to KHX’s experiences as a child.[46]LXA stated that, within the first few months of their relationship, KHX disclosed that he had been sexually abused by a female member of staff at his children's home, although at that stage he spoke about the matter in a dismissive and joking manner and provided little detail. She recalled a later occasion when the name "Lorraine" appeared on television, prompting KHX to disclose that Ms Moorse had masturbated him in the bath. LXA states that KHX subsequently disclosed further details of the sexual abuse, including the incident on a train. She stated that KHX appeared to minimise the abuse because he was a boy and the abuser was an adult woman, and she explained to him that what he had described was abuse.[47]LXA also stated that, in around 2018, KHX began speaking in greater detail about both the physical and sexual abuse he said he had suffered at Richmond Row. She recalled that he was particularly angry about the way in which he had been physically treated at the home.[48]LXA described the impact the abuse had on KHX, including difficulties with trust, relationships, emotional expression and social interaction. She stated that the ongoing litigation has also had a significant effect on him and that he remains preoccupied by his experiences at Richmond Row. LXA also described symptoms which she attributed to KHX's traumatic experiences. She said that he suffers from night terrors, shouting and thrashing in his sleep and that on occasions she had been injured whilst sleeping beside him. She stated that the difficulties associated with these episodes had led them to sleep in separate bedrooms for several years.

Christopher Fay

[49]Christopher Fay is a long-standing friend of KHX whom he first met in 1989, shortly before KHX's 16th birthday. At that time, KHX had recently left Richmond Row and was living at Nettlestone House, which was owned by Mr Fay’s mother-in-law. The house was used, in part, for young people leaving care. Mr Fay stated that he got to know KHX well over a period of approximately three years, during which KHX would leave and return to the accommodation on a number of occasions.[50]According to Mr Fay, KHX began speaking to him about his experiences in care relatively soon after they met. He recalled KHX describing the physical brutality he experienced at the hands of Mr Bucket. In particular, Mr Fay remembered KHX telling him about an incident in which he had been scalded in a bath and that Mr Bucket would "beat him senseless". Mr Fay also recalled KHX speaking about allegations of sexual misconduct involving staff members at Richmond Row. Mr Fay's evidence was that, at that stage, KHX did not provide a detailed account of abuse perpetrated against him personally. However, Mr Fay later became aware of more specific allegations involving Ms Moorse. He received a letter from KHX whilst he was in prison in the mid-1990s, indicating that police had been speaking to him about abuse at Richmond Row.[51]Mr Fay's evidence was that, following police involvement, KHX disclosed in greater detail the sexual abuse he alleged had been committed by Ms Moorse. KHX told him that Ms Moorse had sexually abused him whilst he was in the bath and that this progressed to masturbation. He also described an incident on a train involving sexual abuse by Ms Moorse. Mr Fay formed the impression that KHX had not initially appreciated that the conduct he described amounted to sexual abuse.[52]Mr Fay was aware that KHX had turned to drugs, became involved in offending behaviour and struggled with relationships and stability. Over the years, he had had many drinking sessions with KHX during which he would talk for hours about the abuse he and other children suffered in Richmond Row. He stated that KHX was convinced another child had also been abused by Ms Moorse.

Lorraine Moorse

[53]Ms Moorse was employed by the Defendant as a residential social worker at Richmond Row between 1986 and 1990. Her evidence was that, because of the passage of time, she was unable to remember many specific details concerning KHX or events involving him during his residence at the home. Ms Moorse described Richmond Row as a children's home accommodating both boys and girls, principally teenagers. She recalled it as a structured environment with staff working shifts and maintaining oversight of the residents.[54]Ms Moorse's evidence was that Richard Willett was the child for whom she had principal responsibility as key worker. She explained that she was one of a number of members of staff working at the home and had no special recollection of KHX during the relevant period. However, she did recall that KHX could become angry quickly and his behaviour could at times be challenging. She recalled an incident in which she said KHX pinned her against a wall in a kitchen area. He was physically larger than her and she felt frightened by the incident. She reported the incident to the manager of the home. 1998-1999 and 2021-2022 Police Investigation[55]Ms Moorse was taken, during examination in chief, to the account she gave when interviewed by police in 1999 as this had not been disclosed at the time she prepared her witness statement. She accepted that her recollection at that time was likely to have been better and more reliable than when she prepared her witness statement for these proceedings some 25 years later. In particular, she accepted that reading the 1999 interview had refreshed her memory concerning aspects of the scrubbing brush incident involving Karen Barnard (see below) and KHX’s awareness of her sexuality.[56]Ms Moorse stated that she had been arrested and interviewed following the original report to the police. She had fully cooperated with the police and was subsequently informed that the investigation had been closed. She described herself as horrified by the allegations. Ms Moorse also referred to renewed police contact in or about 2022, when an officer told her that they had informed KHX that the allegations had already been investigated and if he brought them again, they would charge him with wasting police time.

Response to Sexual Abuse Allegations

[57]Ms Moorse denied all allegations of sexual abuse made against her (the bathroom, bedroom, car and train incidents).[58]Ms Moorse denied washing KHX in the manner alleged or engaging in any inappropriate sexual conduct whilst he was in the bath. She likewise denied the allegations that she entered KHX's bedroom and sexually abused him. Her evidence was that female members of staff generally did not enter boys' bedrooms, and she had no recollection of ever being alone with KHX in the circumstances alleged. She maintained that she never had any sexual contact with him or any other child in her care. Ms Moorse also addressed the allegation concerning a train journey to KHX's boarding school in Exeter. She recalled accompanying KHX on one such journey. However, she stated that she travelled with him only for part of the route and denied taking him into a train toilet, masturbating him or requiring him to touch her genitalia.[59]Ms Moorse denied entering the bathroom whilst KHX was bathing save for one occasion in which KHX was in the bath and repeatedly called out for her to wash his back (“the scrubbing brush incident”). According to Ms Moorse, another member of staff, Karen Barnard, suggested playing a joke on KHX and obtained a household scrubbing brush. Ms Moorse said that she accompanied Karen to the bathroom but remained outside the doorway while Karen entered, waved the brush and said words to the effect that she had come to scrub KHX’s back. Ms Moorse states that KHX shouted at them to leave and they immediately did so. She denied entering the bathroom, touching KHX, or there being any sexual element to the incident. She stated that entering the bathroom whilst a child was bathing would be regarded as inappropriate, by modern safeguarding standards.

The Sheffield Incident

[60]Ms Moorse was aware of the Sheffield incident as she had attended the trip. It was a trip to Derbyshire which included a visit to an ice-skating rink in Sheffield. She witnessed an altercation between KHX and Mr Bucket shortly after they had got off the coach. She recalled that KHX had “kicked off” and that Mr Bucket restrained him. She said that she observed the two on the ground but did not know what had preceded the incident, as she had been supervising other children. She stated that the police attended but, once satisfied that the adults present were members of staff acting in that capacity, took no further action and left.[61]Ms Moorse’s impression was that Mr Bucket was attempting to restrain KHX for safety reasons and was using only such force as was necessary to keep him restrained, although she accepted that she did not know the circumstances which had led to the restraint.

Documentary Evidence

[62]The documentary material before the Court was extensive but incomplete. It comprised social services records relating to KHX's childhood and care history, records concerning his placement at Richmond Row, contemporaneous records generated by the operation of the children’s home, medical records, police records generated during investigations undertaken in 1998-1999 and 2020–2022, expert evidence and the pleadings and witness statements filed in these proceedings.

Social Services

[63]The available social services records establish the broad chronology of KHX's childhood. They record longstanding local authority involvement arising from concerns regarding neglect and physical abuse within the family home, being taken into care in 1976, the making of a care order and his subsequent placement history. The records also document concerns regarding KHX's behaviour, episodes of truancy and absconding and educational difficulties.

Richmond Row Records

[64]The available logbooks covering various periods between 1984 and 1989 do not provide a complete chronological account of events within Richmond Row or of interactions between staff and residents.[65]The records that are available confirm that Richmond Row formed a significant part of KHX's care arrangements throughout the period material to this claim, although there were intervals when he returned home and periods when he attended boarding school. The Richmond Row material includes logbook entries relied upon by Ms Moorse. Those records contain references to KHX's behaviour and activities whilst resident at Richmond Row and include entries written or noted by Ms Moorse.[66]The medical records contain evidence that KHX received treatment for an injury to his foot. However, no contemporaneous document has been identified recording the circumstances in which that injury occurred or attributing it to any conduct on the part of Mr Bucket.

Police Disclosure

[67]The police material includes records relating to the investigation undertaken in 1998–1999 following disclosures made by KHX whilst in custody. The disclosure includes a record of Ms Moorse's police interview. In that interview she denied any improper sexual conduct with KHX. The interview record also contains Ms Moorse's description of Richmond Row, her role within the home and her recollections concerning KHX. Amongst other matters, the interview record contains references to KHX being aware of her sexuality. The disclosed material also includes records generated during the later investigation conducted during 2020–2022.[68]The police disclosure also contains material relating to allegations involving other members of staff and other residents at Richmond Row including Richard Willett, who featured in the evidence of both KHX and Ms Moorse.

Expert Evidence

[69]Professor Burns produced a report, dated 20 November 2023, based on a video-link consultation with KHX. In the report he considered KHX’s developmental history, family background, experiences in care and adult functioning. His opinions concerning diagnosis, causation and prognosis were not the subject of oral evidence.[70]In setting out the history provided by KHX, Professor Burns recorded that KHX had been subjected to abuse and neglect by his parents before entering care. Professor Burns recorded that KHX viewed Richmond Row as preferable to remaining in the family home but nevertheless described it as a difficult environment in which he experienced further abuse. According to Professor Burns, KHX learned from these experiences to expect little from figures of authority and developed a tendency simply to endure adversity rather than seek help. He noted a subsequent history of criminal offending, periods of imprisonment and extensive drug misuse, although he recorded that KHX's offending behaviour had reduced substantially over time and that he had become more stable in recent years.[71]Professor Burns expressed the opinion that KHX's personal, educational and social development had been materially and adversely affected by the abuse alleged to have occurred at Richmond Row. He considered that an opportunity to provide a nurturing and reparative environment had been lost and that KHX's development had been negatively influenced as a consequence. He further concluded that there was evidence of significant stress and behavioural difficulties during KHX's childhood and adolescence. Nevertheless, he considered that KHX had achieved a relatively good emotional adjustment by the time of assessment, particularly when viewed against the background of the difficulties he had experienced throughout his life.[72]Professor Burns' evidence on causation recognised that KHX's adverse childhood experiences pre-dated his admission to Richmond Row. However, his opinion was that the abuse alleged by KHX during his time in the Defendant's care made a material contribution to KHX's later difficulties and to the course his life subsequently took. Hearsay Evidence Mr Bucket

Hearsay Evidence

[73]The Defendant relied upon an unsigned draft witness statement from Mr Bucket served as hearsay evidence. Mr Bucket had been employed as a residential care worker at Richmond Row during the entirety of KHX's placement there and had been KHX's key worker. In the statement, Mr Bucket stated that his recollection of events had been affected by a stroke.[74]Mr Bucket described KHX as a young person who had experienced difficulties within his family before entering care. He recalled KHX as having both good and bad days: at times he was cooperative and engaged well with staff, but he could also be uncooperative, defiant and physically challenging. Mr Bucket stated that KHX's behaviour sometimes required intervention in order to ensure his own safety and that of other residents. Mr Bucket was of the view that he had developed a good rapport with KHX. He described spending considerable time with him as part of his role as key worker and participating in activities such as darts, pool and outings. He stated that KHX frequently expressed a wish to return home to his family notwithstanding the difficulties which had led to his placement in care.[75]Mr Bucket stated that there were occasions when KHX's behaviour necessitated physical intervention. Such restraints were always a measure of last resort and used only where verbal attempts at de-escalation had failed and where there was a risk of harm to KHX or others. He stated that all such incidents were recorded and reported in accordance with the procedures operating at Richmond Row at the time.[76]Mr Bucket denied all allegations of physical abuse. He stated that he did not recall any incident involving scalding water and considered the allegation implausible given his recollection of the layout of the home and the controls in place over water temperatures. He also denied allegations that he had bribed KHX with football boots or other gifts. Mr Bucket also denied that he had banged KHX's head against a wall, thrown him down a flight of stairs, or hit or kicked him. His evidence was that any physical contact between himself and KHX occurred either in the context of ordinary care activities or lawful restraint. He stated that he had never abused KHX and categorically rejected all allegations of physical violence.[77]Mr Bucket recalled the Sheffield incident. According to Mr Bucket, KHX became upset and aggressive and escalated to the point where he was at risk of running away and it became necessary to restrain him. Mr Bucket stated that police officers attended, were satisfied that staff were acting appropriately and took no further action.

Ms Ellis

[78]Naadia Ellis explained in her witness statement the steps taken on behalf of the Defendant to locate and engage with Mr Bucket in order to obtain a witness statement. Her evidence described the communications between the Defendant's solicitors and Mr Bucket, the preparation of a draft statement based upon information provided by him, and the subsequent attempts to secure his approval and signature. Ms Ellis' evidence was that Mr Bucket's health deteriorated and that he died in December 2025 before the draft statement could be signed. Analysis and Findings General Approach to the Evidence

Analysis and Findings

[79]This case concerns allegations relating to events said to have occurred in the 1980s. In assessing the evidence, I have borne in mind the well-known difficulties inherent in determining historical allegations. The passage of time may affect the reliability of memory; honest witnesses may be mistaken and discrepancies in recollection are not necessarily indicative of dishonesty.[80]The Civil Evidence Act 1995 permits the admission of hearsay evidence in civil proceedings. The fact that evidence is admissible as hearsay does not determine the weight to be attached to it. By section 4 of the 1995 Act, the court must have regard to all the circumstances relevant to the reliability of the evidence when determining what weight, if any, should be given to it. Relevant considerations include the circumstances in which the statement was made, whether it was made contemporaneously with the matters stated, whether the maker had any motive to misrepresent matters, and the extent to which the evidence can be tested against other evidence in the case. Where the maker of a statement is unavailable to give evidence, including because of death, the inability to test the evidence through cross-examination is a matter to which the court may have regard when evaluating its weight. The court's task is to assess the hearsay evidence together with all the other evidence and to determine what weight, if any, should properly be attached to it.[81]In applying those principles, I have taken into account both the strengths and limitations of the hearsay evidence relied upon by the Defendant. Mr Bucket was plainly an important witness. The Court has the benefit of a draft witness statement prepared before his death containing a clear denial of the allegations and an account of some of the incidents relied upon by KHX. However, the statement was unsigned, Mr Bucket was unavailable for cross-examination, and his evidence could not be tested in light of the evidence ultimately given at trial. I have also borne in mind that the circumstances in which the statement came to be prepared were described in hearsay evidence from Ms Ellis, who likewise did not attend for cross-examination. Accordingly, whilst I have taken both statements into account, I attach more limited weight to them than I would have attached to tested oral evidence.[82]In reaching my conclusions, I have assessed the oral evidence given by the witnesses, the contemporaneous documents, the consistency or otherwise of accounts given at different times, and the extent to which the evidence is supported or contradicted by other material. I have also borne in mind that the absence of a contemporaneous record does not necessarily establish that an event did not occur. Equally, the existence of a contemporaneous record does not invariably establish the accuracy or completeness of the matters recorded. I have not approached the evidence on the basis that any witness must either be wholly truthful or wholly unreliable. The fact that I accept or reject part of a witness's evidence does not necessarily mean that I accept or reject it in its entirety.[83]KHX gave evidence forcefully and at times became frustrated during robust cross-examination. He accepted that recalling events said to have occurred many decades ago was difficult and that some matters could no longer be remembered with precision. There were occasions when he responded to questions in a sarcastic or dismissive manner, particularly when challenged about differences between his present evidence and earlier accounts. At one point he suggested that his recollection of events was better now than it was in 1998. I do not regard those matters as determinative. My assessment is based upon the content of the evidence rather than the manner in which it was given.[84]A particular issue I have borne in mind when assessing KHX's evidence relates to his recollection of the 1998 police investigation. KHX's evidence was that he believed the police were not interested in his allegations and that little came of his report. However, the contemporaneous records demonstrate that a detailed witness statement was obtained and signed by him on 30 October 1998, that the allegations were investigated, and that Ms Moorse was interviewed under caution. During the trial, KHX appeared to have little recollection of significant aspects of that process. This is an example of how a witness's present recollection of events occurring many years ago may differ from what is demonstrated by the contemporaneous documentary record.[85]My analysis and findings on the principal issues in dispute are set out below. To maintain some level of proportionality I have not attempted to resolve every point that was made; only such matters as have enabled me to address the principal issues.

Issue 1 – Which limitation regime applies to allegations of physical assault?

[86]The first issue concerns the proper interpretation of the recently enacted sections 11ZA and 11ZB of the Act. The parties disagree as to whether the physical abuse allegations fall within the newly enacted child sexual abuse regime or remain subject to the ordinary limitation provisions.[87]There is no dispute that, in the absence of the new regime, the allegations of physical abuse were commenced many years after expiry of the primary limitation period. On that footing, KHX could only pursue those allegations if the Court were persuaded that it would be equitable, pursuant to section 33, to disapply the limitation period. By contrast, if sections 11ZA and 11ZB apply, the ordinary limitation regime is displaced and the focus shifts to whether the Defendant can establish that a fair hearing is no longer possible. The present issue is therefore one of considerable importance.

Submissions

[88]Mr Levinson submits that section 11ZA applies to the proceedings as a whole. The foundation of that submission is the repeated use of the word “action” throughout the section. As this action includes allegations of child sexual abuse, he contends that the statutory conditions are satisfied and that limitation is consequently removed not merely from the sexual abuse allegations but from all claims advanced within the proceedings, including the allegations of physical abuse against Mr Bucket. He further relies upon the similarity between sections 11 and 11ZA and upon Azaz v Denton [2009] EWHC 1758 (QB).[89]Mr Weston submits that such a construction gives insufficient weight to the statutory conditions governing the operation of the section. He contends that section 11ZA is directed to claims for personal injury attributable to child sexual abuse and that Condition 3 prevents the section applying to distinct allegations of physical abuse merely because they are pursued alongside allegations of sexual abuse.[90]Sections 11ZA and 11ZB were inserted into the Act only shortly before the hearing of this claim. No authority addressing the present issue was drawn to my attention. The issue therefore falls to be determined as a matter of statutory interpretation, the starting point being the language chosen by Parliament.

Discussion

[91]Section 11ZA(2) provides that the section applies to an action for damages which “meets conditions 1 to 3”. Condition 1 requires that the damages claimed consist of, or include, damages in respect of personal injuries. Condition 2 requires that the claimant was under the age of 18 when the cause of action accrued. Condition 3 requires that “the act or omission to which the claimant's personal injuries were attributable constituted sexual abuse”. The operation of the section is therefore expressly conditioned upon a relationship between the relevant personal injuries and conduct constituting sexual abuse.[92]There is some attraction in Mr Levinson's submission given that Parliament repeatedly chose to use the word “action”. That choice of language, read together with the phrase “consist of or include” in Condition 1, provides some support for his construction. However, the attraction of that argument diminishes when section 11ZA is read as a whole. Those features do not dispense with the separate requirement imposed by Condition 3. The action must still satisfy the condition that the act or omission to which the claimant's personal injuries were attributable constituted sexual abuse.[93]In my judgment, the claim as pleaded illustrates the difficulty with Mr Levinson's construction. Although advanced within a single set of proceedings, the claim comprises two analytically distinct allegations against two different alleged tortfeasors. Each depends upon different conduct, different evidence and different factual findings. The allegations against Mr Bucket consist of physical assaults. The acts relied upon do not constitute sexual abuse. The fact that those allegations are pursued in the same proceedings as allegations of sexual abuse does not of itself satisfy Condition 3.[94]Parliament did not provide that the section 11ZA applies whenever proceedings include an allegation of child sexual abuse. Rather, it prescribed three cumulative conditions, each of which must be satisfied. Condition 3 is critical. Parliament required not merely that the action include a claim for personal injury, nor even that it include a claim involving child sexual abuse. It required that the act or omission to which the claimant’s personal injuries were attributable constituted sexual abuse. In my judgment that requirement is inconsistent with a construction whereby distinct allegations of physical abuse are brought within section 11ZA solely because they are advanced alongside allegations of sexual abuse.[95]Nor do I consider that Azaz resolves the issue. That case concerned the operation of section 11. The question before me concerns a different provision, enacted for a distinct purpose and containing an additional condition not found in section 11. Whilst Azaz assists in identifying the significance of the word “action”, it cannot override the express language Parliament chose to enact in Condition 3.[96]The broader structure of the Act supports that conclusion. Section 33 itself recognises that different causes of action within the same proceedings may attract different limitation consequences. It would therefore be surprising if Parliament had intended, by the introduction of sections 11ZA and 11ZB, to abolish limitation for distinct non-sexual abuse claims without stating so expressly. That conclusion is consistent with the title of section 11ZA itself: “Actions in respect of personal injuries attributable to child sexual abuse”.[97]Standing back and reading the provision as a whole, I am satisfied that Parliament intended to remove limitation in relation to claims for personal injury attributable to child sexual abuse. It did not intend to remove limitation from distinct allegations of physical abuse merely because they are pursued within the same proceedings as allegations of sexual abuse.[98]Accordingly, I conclude that sections 11ZA and 11ZB do not govern KHX's allegations of physical abuse against Mr Bucket. Those allegations remain subject to sections 11 and 33 of the Act. Issue 2: Should the discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 be exercised in favour of KHX? Exercise of the Section 33 Discretion[99]Having concluded that the physical abuse allegations are subject to sections 11 and 33 of the Act, it is necessary to determine whether it would be equitable to permit that part of the claim to proceed notwithstanding expiry of the limitation period. The applicable principles are set out earlier in this judgment and need not be repeated in detail. The discretion conferred by section 33 is broad and unfettered. The matters identified in section 33(3) are not exhaustive. The ultimate question is whether, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it is equitable to allow the action to proceed. Central to that exercise is the prejudice which would be suffered by each party and the effect of the delay upon the cogency of the evidence.

Length of and Reasons for the Delay

[100]There is no dispute that the claim was commenced substantially outside the primary limitation period. KHX attained the age of 18 in June 1992. The primary limitation period therefore expired on his 21st birthday in June 1995. Proceedings were not commenced until October 2024. The claim is accordingly some 29 years out of time and concerns events said to have occurred almost four decades ago. This is a very substantial delay and is a factor which weighs in the Defendant's favour.[101]This is not a case of delayed knowledge. KHX was aware of the facts giving rise to the alleged cause of action when they occurred. It is also clear that allegations concerning both Mr Bucket and Ms Moorse were reported to the police in 1998. The Defendant is therefore entitled to rely upon the fact that proceedings could have been commenced at a materially earlier stage.[102]Although I do not regard the delay as fully explained, it is not wholly inexplicable. This claim concerns allegations of abuse said to have been committed against a child by those entrusted with his care. KHX's evidence was that having made disclosures which resulted in no action being taken, he "felt no one would be interested in hearing what [he] was saying" and did not feel that anyone would believe him. He also stated that, for many years, he sought simply to "get on with life" and hoped that he would eventually forget about what had occurred. The authorities recognise that historic abuse cases frequently possess features not encountered in ordinary personal injury litigation and that the abuse itself may contribute to delay in reporting or pursuing claims. Furthermore, I accept Mr Levinson’s submission that the sexual abuse and physical abuse were inextricably bound together, and it would be unrealistic to expect KHX to bring a claim for one and not the other. Whilst these factors do not eliminate the significance of the delay, they provide some explanation for it and form part of the balancing exercise.[103]I accept that developments in the law following decisions such as Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22 and Hoare materially altered the legal landscape for historic abuse litigation and may form part of the explanation for why proceedings were not commenced at an earlier stage. However, those developments cannot of themselves explain the whole period of delay. Allegations concerning both Mr Bucket and Ms Moorse had been reported to the police by 1998, and the claim was not commenced until 2024. Accordingly, whilst the state of the law forms part of the explanation for the delay, it does not fully account for it.[104]I do not regard the reasons for delay as susceptible to a single explanation. The delay cannot be attributed solely to the continuing effects of the alleged abuse or developments in the law. Equally, I do not accept that it should be characterised as wholly unexplained. The reasons are likely to have been multiple and to have evolved over time.

The Effect of Delay on the Cogency of the Evidence

[105]The effect of the delay upon the evidence is the most significant feature of the section 33 analysis. There can be no doubt that the passage of time has affected the evidential landscape. Memories have inevitably faded. Not all contemporaneous records are available. Most significantly, Mr Bucket is now deceased. The Defendant has therefore been deprived of the opportunity to call him to give oral evidence, to take further instructions based on his response to developments within the litigation and to have his account tested in the usual way through cross-examination. I accept that this constitutes real prejudice.[106]However, the prejudice must be assessed in the context of the evidence which remains available. This is not a case in which allegations first emerged after the death of the alleged perpetrator. Allegations concerning Mr Bucket were reported to the police in 1998. A police investigation followed. The Court has available a substantial body of documentary material including social services records, Richmond Row records, medical records and police records. The Defendant has also obtained a draft witness statement from Mr Bucket before his death and relies upon that evidence. In addition, the Court has been able to hear evidence from KHX and from other witnesses whose evidence bears upon the issues in dispute. The evidential picture is therefore incomplete but far from barren. Whilst some aspects of the allegations can no longer be investigated in the way that might have been possible had proceedings been brought earlier, many of the issues raised by the parties can still be examined by reference to the available records and evidence before the Court.[107]As recognised in the authorities, it is not always possible to assess forensic prejudice without considering whether the passage of time has affected the reliability and cogency of the evidence available to determine the issues. The observations which follow are made solely for the purposes of the section 33 exercise and should not be treated as concluded findings on liability. Some of the matters relied upon by the Defendant are of limited significance. Differences concerning chronology, frequency and similar matters are unsurprising in a case concerning events said to have occurred nearly forty years ago and do not materially affect my assessment of prejudice. There are, however, a number of matters which are potentially significant. The Defendant relies upon differences between KHX's various accounts concerning when the abusive conduct by Mr Bucket is said to have begun. It also relies upon differences in the descriptions given over time of the bath incident and the circumstances said to have given rise to the Sheffield incident. In addition, the Defendant points to matters which appear to have emerged or developed in later accounts, including the evidence relating to Richard Willett and the car incident.[108]I reach no concluded views on the significance of those matters but taken cumulatively, they are capable of affecting the cogency of the evidence available to determine the issues. For present purposes they are relevant insofar as they illuminate the forensic consequences of the delay.

Conduct of the Defendant

[109]No material criticism is made of the Defendant's conduct for the purposes of section 33(3)(c).

Disability

[110]Apart from minority, there is no suggestion that KHX suffered from any disability within the meaning of the Act which materially affects the present analysis.

Promptness and Steps Taken to Obtain Advice

[111]The Defendant is entitled to rely upon the fact that allegations were reported to the police many years before proceedings were issued and that no civil claim was commenced at that stage. That factor weighs in the Defendant's favour. On the other hand, once solicitors were instructed and proceedings commenced, the claim appears to have been pursued with reasonable diligence.

Prejudice to the Parties

[112]Refusal to exercise the discretion would prevent KHX from pursuing serious allegations of abuse said to have occurred whilst he was a child in the Defendant's care. The prejudice to him would therefore be substantial.[113]The Defendant has suffered genuine forensic prejudice as a result of the delay. Memories have faded, relevant records have not survived and, most significantly, Mr Bucket is now deceased. The Defendant has therefore lost the opportunity to adduce and test his evidence in the ordinary way. These are important factors weighing against the exercise of the discretion.[114]However, this is not a case in which the allegations first emerged only after Mr Bucket’s death. They were reported to the police in 1998 when he was still alive and capable of responding to them. A police investigation took place, and substantial documentary material survives. Although the evidential picture is incomplete, the claim remains capable of meaningful forensic evaluation.

Overall Assessment and Conclusion

[115]Standing back and considering all the circumstances, I accept that the delay is very substantial and not fully explained. I further accept that it has caused real forensic prejudice to the Defendant, particularly through the death of Mr Bucket and the loss of potentially relevant evidence.[116]Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the prejudice has not reached the point where it would be inequitable to require the Defendant to meet the claim. The allegations were raised long before these proceedings, a contemporaneous police investigation took place and sufficient evidence remains available to permit a fair evaluation of the issues.[117]Balancing the prejudice to each party, and giving significant weight to both the extent of the delay and the forensic disadvantage suffered by the Defendant, I nevertheless conclude that it is equitable to disapply the limitation period pursuant to section 33. Issue 3: Has KHX proved the allegations of physical abuse against Mr Bucket? Matters supporting KHX’s account

Issue 3: Has KHX proved the allegations of physical abuse against Mr Bucket?

[118]There are a number of features of the evidence which lend support to KHX's account.[119]First, allegations that Mr Bucket physically mistreated him are longstanding and were being made many years before the commencement of these proceedings. They cannot be characterised as a recent fabrication.[120]Secondly, the evidence of Mr Fay and LXA supports KHX’s case that he had spoken of physical abuse by Mr Bucket many years before these proceedings were contemplated.[121]Thirdly, the contemporaneous records establish that KHX sustained an injury to his foot whilst resident at Richmond Row. That record does not establish the mechanism by which the injury was caused, but it does provide independent confirmation that an injury of the type described by KHX existed at the relevant time. I accept Mr Levinson's submission that one would not expect a member of staff who had assaulted a child to record that fact in the Richmond Row records. The absence of any such entry therefore carries little weight. However, the position regarding the medical records is different. Whilst the doctor’s note corroborates the fact that KHX sustained a foot injury requiring treatment, it contains no suggestion that the injury had been caused by an assault. Had KHX reported to the doctor that the injury had been deliberately inflicted by a member of staff, one would ordinarily expect some record of that allegation.[122]Fourthly, the Sheffield incident plainly occurred in some form. KHX, Mr Bucket and Ms Moorse all refer to police attendance. KHX’s core account of the Sheffield incident has remained broadly consistent over time: there was a trip, an altercation involving Mr Bucket, restraint or force used against KHX, and police attendance. Variations as to whether the triggering event was KHX wanting to go into Sheffield or trying to conceal some cigarettes strike me as the sort of peripheral detail one would expect to vary when witnesses are recalling an incident. The central features of KHX's account of the incident have remained broadly consistent over time and those differences are unsurprising in the context of recollections of events said to have occurred almost four decades ago. I am satisfied that the Sheffield incident occurred and that physical force was used by Mr Bucket. However, the evidence does not permit reliable findings as to the circumstances which gave rise to the incident or the extent of the force used. Whilst KHX characterises the incident as an assault, both Ms Moorse and Mr Bucket described it as a restraint. In the absence of any contemporaneous record explaining what occurred and bearing in mind the limitations of the available evidence, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that KHX has proved that the force used by Mr Bucket was unlawful.[123]I have also considered the submission that the available Richmond Row records contain entries concerning comparatively routine matters and yet contain no identified record of the Sheffield incident or the circumstances of the foot injury. That submission has some force. However, I do not consider that the absence of such records permits any positive inference that KHX's account is correct. The documentary record is plainly incomplete, and I am unable to determine whether such events were never recorded, were recorded in documents that have not survived, or were omitted for other reasons. The absence of records therefore neither proves nor disproves the allegations.[124]Finally, I accept that KHX remains deeply affected by his experiences at Richmond Row. I do not regard his allegations as a recent fabrication advanced for the purposes of these proceedings.

Matters weighing against KHX’s account

[125]I accept Mr Levinson’s submission that precise recollection is often unrealistic in historic cases concerning multiple instances of abuse. I do not treat every inconsistency as indicative of unreliability, nor every failure of memory as inconsistent with a truthful account. The significance of varying accounts or inconsistencies lies in whether they bear directly upon the substance of the allegations themselves rather than matters of peripheral detail.[126]Mr Levinson submits that the core allegation of physical mistreatment by Mr Bucket has remained essentially consistent over many years and that the differences identified by the Defendant are no more than the sort of variations commonly encountered in historic abuse litigation. I accept that submission up to a point. Not every inconsistency relied upon by the Defendant is significant. Minor differences concerning chronology, and frequency are unsurprising in a claim concerning events said to have occurred almost forty years ago. The difficulties do not arise from such ordinary variations of recollectiongiven that human memory is neither fixed nor infallible.[127]There are, however, some differences which cannot be dismissed as the ordinary consequences of the passage of time and require closer consideration. There are two examples of the way in which KHX’s account has developed over time, which I consider to be significant: when the abuse is said to have begun and the mechanism by which the principal pleaded injury was inflicted. Those are not peripheral details; they concern the very acts which the Court is asked to find occurred.[128]In his 1998 police statement, KHX stated that the first couple of years at Richmond Row were "alright" and that he got on quite well with both staff and other children. It was only "after a while" that Mr Bucket was said to have started manhandling him and becoming physical. By contrast, the history recorded by Professor Burns was that abusive conduct began from the outset of the placement. In his oral evidence, KHX rejected the suggestion that he had said the abuse started on the first day but maintained that it began within the first week and emphasised that Mr Bucket was the first member of staff whom he met. The significance of this issue does not lie in the distinction between the first day and the first week. Rather, it lies in the fact that the account now advanced portrays physical abuse as commencing almost immediately upon placement, whereas the picture emerging from the 1998 statement was that the first period at Richmond Row was unremarkable and that difficulties with Mr Bucket developed only later. If correct, that materially affects both the duration and character of the abuse alleged and is therefore an example of the account developing over time rather than a mere discrepancy of date or chronology.[129]The other example concerns the bath incident. I accept that the contemporaneous medical records provide support for KHX's assertion that he sustained an injury to his foot whilst resident at Richmond Row. The difficulty lies in the mechanism by which that injury is said to have occurred. In his 1998 police statement, KHX stated that Mr Bucket attempted to throw him into the bath whilst he was fully clothed. He described being grabbed during the incident and his foot becoming stuck beneath the hot tap, causing a significant blister. The account thereafter appears to have altered in a number of respects. The history recorded by Professor Burns was that Mr Bucket pushed KHX into a bath and ‘held’ his foot beneath the hot tap. In his witness statement KHX referred to his foot being “held” under scalding hot water but under cross examination, rejected the suggestion of that description. He stated that Mr Bucket attempted to throw him into the bath and that his foot came into contact with the hot tap in the course of the incident. Later in his evidence he accepted that the earlier accounts referred to his foot being "stuck" beneath the tap but maintained that the wording was unimportant because the essential point was that his foot ended up beneath the hot tap. Whilst KHX suggested that the differences were no more than matters of wording, the descriptions are not identical. Given that the mechanism of injury lies at the heart of this pleaded allegation, I regard those differences as capable of bearing upon the reliability of the account now advanced.[130]I also bear in mind that the allegations concern events which, if they occurred, would have been significant experiences for a child. The hot water incident is said to have caused a painful injury requiring medical attention. The concerns I have identified therefore do not arise simply because the events occurred long ago but because important aspects of the account have changed in ways which are not readily explained by the ordinary fading of memory alone.[131]Finally, I have also taken into account the evidence concerning a recent incident involving KHX and LXA which resulted in KHX's arrest and interview by the police in January 2026 in relation to allegations including threats to kill, coercive and controlling behaviour and sexual assault. No further action was ultimately taken. I emphasise that those matters are entirely collateral to the issues before the Court. They do not assist in determining whether abuse occurred at Richmond Row and I attach no weight to them for that purpose. However, both KHX and LXA gave evidence concerning the circumstances which led to the police involvement. KHX suggested that little of significance had occurred. Under cross-examination, LXA maintained that she had not lied to the police and sought to characterise the matter as a misunderstanding or difference in perception. Both KHX and LXA were defensive. Having heard that evidence, I do not accept the account ultimately advanced by either witness. The significance of this matter does not lie in the truth or otherwise of the allegations which prompted the police investigation. I make no finding on that issue and attach no weight to the allegations themselves. Rather, the relevance of the evidence lies in the fact that the accounts given by KHX and LXA to this Court concerning relatively recent events were unreliable. Whilst I do not regard this as a matter of substantial weight, it forms part of the overall picture when evaluating KHX’s evidence.[132]I have considered the material relating to allegations made by Paula Mansell concerning Mr Bucket at another children's home. I attach no weight to that material. The allegation did not concern Richmond Row or KHX, no finding was made by the police and the information available to the Court is limited. In circumstances where Mr Bucket is deceased and the allegation was never tested in adversarial proceedings; I do not regard it to be of any assistance in determining whether the allegations made by KHX have been proved.

Overall Assessment

[133]Drawing the evidence together, I accept that the core allegation that KHX was physically mistreated by Mr Bucket has been advanced consistently over many years. I further accept that KHX genuinely believes that he was badly treated at Richmond Row and that he remains deeply aggrieved by his experiences there. However, sincerity is not the same as reliability. The Court's task is to determine whether the specific allegations relied upon in support of the claim have been proved on the balance of probabilities. My conclusion does not depend upon accepting Mr Bucket’s hearsay account; it arises principally from the difficulties within KHX’s own evidence, considered against the contemporaneous material and the other evidence before the Court.[134]The difficulty with KHX's account lies not in peripheral differences of detail but in developments and inconsistencies affecting the substance of the allegations. They bear directly on the nature, duration and circumstances of the alleged abuse. The hot water incident and the Sheffield incident were relied upon as significant examples of the pattern of physical abuse. The difficulties I have identified therefore undermine not only those alleged incidents but also my confidence in the wider allegation of repeated physical assault. Considered cumulatively, they leave me unable to place sufficient confidence in KHX's account.[135]This conclusion does not rest upon any finding that KHX has deliberately fabricated his account. Nor do I conclude that every aspect of his recollection is inaccurate. Whilst there are features of the evidence which lend support to KHX’s account, the evidential difficulties identified above are too significant to permit me safely to conclude that the specific assaults alleged against Mr Bucket have been proved on a balance of probabilities.[136]I have also considered the camping incident relied upon by KHX and the scrubbing brush incident. The camping incident was considerably less detailed than the bath and Sheffield incidents and was not a central focus of the evidence at trial. In light of my conclusions on the physical abuse allegations more generally, it is unnecessary to determine separately whether the incident occurred as alleged or to resolve the Defendant’s submission that, even if it did occur, it would not constitute the assault relied upon in the Particulars of Claim. I am satisfied that the scrubbing brush incident occurred. Ms Moorse accepted both in her 1999 police interview and in her evidence before me that the incident should not have happened. I accept that such conduct was inappropriate. However, I am not persuaded that the incident provides reliable evidence of a sexual interest in children. The contemporaneous account given by Ms Moorse in 1999 was that the incident was an ill-judged attempt to embarrass or "teach a lesson" to KHX rather than an act motivated by sexual gratification. Whilst the incident reflects poor professional boundaries, I do not regard it as materially advancing KHX's case that Ms Moorse engaged in sexual activity with him.

Principal Findings

[137]Drawing the evidence together, I make the following principal findings: i. Allegations of physical abuse by Mr Bucket are longstanding and were being made many years before these proceedings. ii. KHX sustained an injury to his foot whilst resident at Richmond Row. However, the contemporaneous records do not establish how that injury was caused. iii. An incident occurred in Sheffield involving KHX, Mr Bucket and police attendance. Physical force was used by Mr Bucket. However, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that KHX has proved that the force used was unlawful. iv. KHX genuinely believes that he was badly treated by Mr Bucket and remains deeply affected by his experiences at Richmond Row. v. There are material difficulties within the evidence concerning the physical abuse allegations which go beyond ordinary uncertainties of recollection. vi. Considered cumulatively, those difficulties leave me unable to place sufficient confidence in the reliability of KHX's account of the alleged assaults. vii. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Bucket committed the assaults alleged by KHX. Conclusion[138]KHX has therefore failed to discharge the burden of proving the physical abuse allegations against Mr Bucket. That aspect of the claim is dismissed. Issue 4: Has KHX proved the allegations of sexual abuse against Ms Moorse? Matters Supporting KHX's Account

Issue 4: Has KHX proved the allegations of sexual abuse against Ms Moorse?

[139]I begin by identifying the matters which support KHX's account. First, KHX disclosed allegations of sexual abuse to the police in 1998, many years before the commencement of these proceedings.[140]Secondly, KHX made disclosures concerning sexual abuse to both Mr Fay and LXA. Their evidence confirms that KHX was making allegations of sexual abuse many years before these proceedings were commenced.[141]Thirdly, I recognise the force of the submission that KHX's account does not display obvious embellishment. He does not allege penetrative abuse or more serious forms of sexual offending. He does not allege that abuse occurred during an alleged visit to Ms Moorse's flat. The allegations advanced are relatively limited in scope and number. By the conclusion of his evidence, KHX appeared to confine the allegations to five incidents. In his 1998 police statement, KHX stated that Ms Moorse had not forced him to do anything, and that he had in fact enjoyed what she did.[142]Taken together, these factors provide significant support for the genuineness of KHX's belief that Ms Moorse sexually abused him and mean that the allegations cannot be dismissed as a recent invention or fabrication.

Matters Weighing Against KHX's Account

[143]Against those matters, there are a number of features of the evidence which undermine the reliability of KHX’s account.[144]A significant example concerns KHX's evidence relating to Richard Willett. In his evidence before me, KHX gave an account of a direct conversation in which Richard Willett was said to have disclosed that Ms Moorse had behaved similarly towards him. In oral evidence KHX described the conversation as memorable because, until then, he had believed himself to be the only victim. However, in his 1998 police statement KHX stated that Richard Willett had not told him about the sexual abuse himself and that the information had come from another source. When this discrepancy was put to him, KHX accepted that the two accounts were inconsistent but maintained that Richard Willett had in fact spoken to him directly. This is not merely a difference of emphasis. It concerns the source of the information itself and is therefore relevant when assessing the reliability of KHX's present recollection. I am unable to reconcile KHX's present account of what Richard Willett allegedly told him with KHX's own earlier accounts. In my judgment, KHX's present account of that conversation is materially inaccurate. Whether this results from reconstruction, mistake or some other process is impossible to determine. What matters is that it is an important aspect of his evidence that I do not accept.[145]A further concern arises from the development of aspects of the allegation over time. The car incident now forms part of KHX's account and was described in evidence as one of the incidents that remained etched in his memory. However, it does not appear in his 1998 police statement or contemporaneous police summary. It was, however, included in KHX’s subsequent accounts. I am unable satisfactorily to reconcile its emergence with the other versions of events relied upon by KHX. I do not treat this matter in isolation as determinative.[146]The significance of these matters lies not merely in the existence of minor inconsistencies. The conversation with Richard Willett and the emergence of the car incident concern matters relied upon to establish the abuse itself. They are not ancillary features of the account. For that reason, I do not regard them as ordinary discrepancies of recollection but as matters capable of bearing directly upon reliability.[147]I have also considered the evidence given by KHX and LXA concerning the events which resulted in police involvement in January 2026. For the reasons already given, I did not accept important aspects of the evidence given by either witness concerning those events. Although entirely collateral to the allegations against Ms Moorse, those findings are relevant because they concern comparatively recent events and therefore bear upon my assessment of reliability.

Evidence of Ms Moorse

[148]In considering Ms Moorse’s evidence I recognise that a witness who denies allegations does not face the same challenge as a witness required to recall and describe detailed events said to have occurred many decades ago. I also recognise that comparatively little is known about Ms Moorse, whereas KHX's life and conduct have been examined in considerable detail. I have taken those matters into account.[149]Importantly, Ms Moorse readily accepted that her recollection in 1999 was likely to have been better than her recollection today. She accepted that where there was a conflict between her evidence in 1999 and her present recollection, the earlier account was likely to be more reliable. I regarded that as a realistic concession. She was also willing to acknowledge that the scrubbing brush incident involving Karen Barnard should not have happened and was inappropriate. I do not regard these matters as determinative. However, they form part of my overall assessment of the evidence. I found Ms Moorse‘s evidence to be credible and reliable.

Overall Assessment

[150]Assessing the evidence in the round, I accept that the allegations against Ms Moorse are longstanding and that KHX disclosed allegations of sexual abuse many years before the commencement of these proceedings. I accept that he may genuinely believe the truth of his account. I also recognise that the allegations are not characterised by obvious embellishment or exaggeration. Those are all matters which favour KHX's case.[151]I also bear in mind that KHX's present recollection occasionally contained a degree of specificity not found in the earlier accounts. By way of example, in his oral evidence KHX stated that a bedroom incident occurred on the same night as the bath incident. The earlier accounts assert that the bath incidents preceded the bedroom incidents but did not record that immediate temporal connection. I do not regard this as evidence of deliberate fabrication. But it is another illustration of the difficulties inherent in relying upon memory alone when attempting to recall historic events.[152]Against those matters, however, I must weigh the reliability concerns identified above. In particular, I have concluded that important aspects of KHX’s evidence concerning Richard Willett and the emergence of the car incident cannot satisfactorily be reconciled with his earlier accounts. In considering the evidence as a whole, I am unable to place sufficient confidence in the reliability of KHX's evidence safely to conclude that the allegations of sexual abuse against Ms Moorse have been proved.

Principal Findings

[153]Drawing the evidence together, I make the following principal findings: i. The allegations against Ms Moorse are longstanding and pre-date these proceedings. ii. KHX disclosed allegations of sexual abuse to others, including the police, many years before issuing this claim. iii. KHX's account does not display obvious embellishment. iv. I do not accept KHX's account of the conversation he says he had with Richard Willett concerning sexual abuse by Ms Moorse. v. There are aspects of the allegation which have developed over time in ways that undermine KHX’s reliability. vi. I found Ms Moorse to be a credible and reliable witness. vii. Considered cumulatively, I am unable to safely place sufficient confidence in the reliability of KHX's evidence of the alleged sexual assaults. viii. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Ms Moorse sexually assaulted KHX.

Conclusion

[154]Accordingly, KHX has not discharged the burden of proof in relation to the allegations of sexual abuse against Ms Moorse and that claim is dismissed.

Issue 5: Quantum

[155]In light of my findings that KHX has failed to establish the allegations against Mr Bucket and Ms Moorse, the question of quantum does not arise.

Consequential Matters

[156]I recognise that this outcome will be disappointing for KHX. However, the court's task is to determine the issues on the basis of the evidence and the applicable legal principles. For the reasons set out above, I have concluded that the claim has not been established.[157]I record my gratitude to counsel and their solicitors for their careful preparation of the case and the assistance they have provided throughout the trial.