Limitation reform in child sexual abuse claims for compensation

Section 96 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 came into force this week, bringing into effect the amendments to the Limitation Act 1980 where it concerns child sexual abuse claims. This implements one of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse's recommendations to abolish limitation in such cases, following its work into institutional responses and other harms.

The Limitation Act 1980 was amended to enact sections 11ZA and 11ZB, which can be accessed here.

What has changed?

In line with extensive consultation:

• The limitation period - which was previously three years for a personal injury claim - now no longer applies in cases of child sexual abuse, meaning that victims and survivors no longer have to persuade a court that discretion should be exercised to allow a claim to proceed under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980.
  
  
• The limitation changes only apply to cases of child sexual abuse. Where a claimant was sexually abused as an adult, the claim will still need to be brought within three years in the case of a personal injury matter, unless discretion is exercised by a court as outlined above. Limitation does not apply for periods where adult claimants lack capacity.
  
  
• In cases where a child was abused in other ways, e.g. physically with no sexual overtures, the three year limitation period will still apply. However, the time period will not start to run until a child turns 18, so proceedings can be brought at any point before their 21st birthday, as is the case for any personal injury claim involving children.
  
  
• The claim pursued must be for personal injury, which must be caused by an act or omission, and includes claims brought in 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".
  
  
• In cases where there has already been a settlement or final determination, even if that final determination is subject to appeal, the new section 11ZA will not apply.
  
  
• In cases where a claimant has sadly passed away, proceedings must have been commenced before death in order for the claimant's estate to benefit from section 11ZA.
  
  
• Section 11ZA does not apply to claims pursued under section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which has its own limitation period of six years.
  
  
• Section 11ZB outlines that the burden of whether a fair trial is possible is now for the defendant to prove, and that if a fair trial cannot take place, then the claim must be dismissed.
  
  
• These changes only apply in England and Wales. Scotland has no limitation period for child sexual abuse claims, provided the abuse occurred on or after 26 September 1964. Northern Ireland has a three year limitation period, with judicial discretion permitted in some cases to allow a claim to proceed.

What will likely happen in practice?

The law provides that any personal injury sustained must constitute sexual abuse. Whilst we anticipate there may well follow arguments around semantics, it is important to note that "abuse" can constitute one singular episode. It is unclear whether the limitation enactment will only apply to abuse claims that involve the tort of the trespass to the person, i.e. unwanted physical contact, which will have to be sexual in its nature for the limitation bar to be removed.

The law expressly excludes sexual harassment claims brought under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, but what is further unclear is where other harms, such as image-based abuse, grooming, and intentional infliction of harm, may fall. The latest update to the Judicial College Guidelines recognised image-based abuse as a specific form of harm.

In principle, if there has been injury due to non-physical sexual harm, the other qualifying criteria exist, and a claim is brought in negligence, nuisance or breach of duty, either contractually, via statute, or independently of either contract or statute, then a case could arguably be made that a claimant should be entitled to rely on section 11ZA. If a sexual harassment claim can be brought as a breach of contract claim, and it falls under the umbrella of sexual abuse, then ultimately it begs the question: can that claim proceed as a personal injury claim relying on section 11ZA if the six year limitation period for a statutory harassment claim has passed?

It will unfortunately likely be the subject of test litigation, which is unhelpful. There is a body of pre-existing case law on limitation, where many of the cases involve sexual abuse. If a case-by-case assessment will still follow for the cases that may well prove to be outliers, then do the parties in litigation have the certainty and clarity that the law change was supposed to provide?

What about claims against organisations?

The changes apply to any case where a duty might exist "independently of any such contract or any such provision", and was clearly so worded to ensure that claimants might be able to pursue organisations for vicarious liability, as they have been able to do for many years.

When the Government initially consulted on the law change, this was highlighted as an issue that had not been given sufficient consideration. However, in being able to pursue a claim independent of contract or statute, the claimant will still need to establish a duty exists and was owed in order for this aspect to engage. The claimant will also of course still need to prove the other ingredients of their claim and establish that the organisation was indeed vicariously liable for the perpetrator's actions, if they are unable to establish that the organisation themselves were negligent by their acts or omissions in their own right.

The right to a fair trial, namely the cogency of evidence, was a pre-existing consideration prior to the implementation of the Crime and Policing Act 2026, when inviting the court whether or not to exercise discretion under the old section 33 provisions under the Limitation Act 1980. However, will there be an unintended consequence of individual perpetrators being more easily able to satisfy that a fair trial is impossible versus the organisations that may be vicariously liable for their actions? It creates a somewhat perverse vacuum where the perpetrator is better placed to argue prejudice than the organisation, where in many cases they may have had no knowledge of the abuse.

Will the law be retrospective?

The law will apply to cases that pre-date the enactment of the Crime and Policing Act 2026. Whilst the new limitation provisions exclude settled claims and those with a final determination, "final determination" may also be a point of contention. Arguably, any past or ongoing claim that has not ended in settlement, trial, or strike out will not have had their final determination, and res judicata will not apply, although claimants will require permission from the court under CPR 38.7 to pursue a further claim arising out of the same or substantially the same facts if they look to resurrect any previously discontinued case by way of a new action.

The reforms represent a landmark shift in access to justice for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse, and clarity for defendant organisations, insurers, and those representing them. However, they also introduce new complexities that will require careful judicial interpretation. Early cases will shape the boundaries of sections 11ZA and 11ZB, and practitioners should expect a period of test litigation before the law settles.

Defendants and defendant organisations will also need to be mindful of the updated Judicial College Guidelines, where the defendant or representative's conduct of the litigation or non-cooperation may influence an award of aggravated damages. You might find our article here of use.

How we can help

If you would like assistance with any of the issues featured in this article, please contact us.

The information in this article is correct at the time of writing. It is intended as general guidance and should not be treated as legal advice. Every situation turns on its own facts, and tailored advice should be sought before taking any action.

Munro Advisory LLP (OC459151) is not a regulated law firm and does not provide reserved legal services.