Landmark ruling ‘gives hope’ to Scottish victims of abuse in foster care

A landmark Supreme Court ruling has given hope to victims after a local authority was held responsible for abusive foster parents, according to Scottish law firm Digby Brown.

Nottinghamshire County Council was yesterday found vicariously liable for the physical, emotional and sexual abuse of a foster child in the 1980s.

Judges ruled 4:1 that the council was responsible because it paid the foster parents to care for children on its behalf.

Kim Leslie, partner and specialist abuse solicitor at Digby Brown, said: “This ruling from the Supreme Court is significant for anyone in Scotland who has been abused in foster care.

“For decades, victims of abuse have felt like they’ve been clutching at straws in the pursuit of justice and compensation with organisations using loopholes to disassociate themselves from individual abusers on their payroll, or linked via an affiliate body.

“We’ve seen it time and time again with religious groups, football clubs or youth organisations – often leaving victims with no alternative route but to seek answers via CICA if they are indeed eligible.

“However this ruling, combined with the removal of the time-bar this month, means we could see a significant rise in cases over the near future.”

Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council had originally been thrown out by Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal, but was successfully appealed on Wednesday following a submission to the Supreme Court.

Lady Hale and Lords Kerr, Clarke, Reed and Hughes heard the appellant was in council care between seven and 18.

The council placed her in foster care with Mr and Mrs A between March 1985 and March 1986, and with Mr and Mrs B between October 1987 and February 1988. The appellant was physically and emotionally abused by Mrs A, and sexually abused by Mr B.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by a majority of 4-1, finding the local authority vicariously liable for the abuse committed by the foster parents. However they rejected an argument that the local authority were liable on the basis of a non-delegable duty.