Skip to content

General information only — not legal advice. Published by Edward & Amaury Solicitors, solicitors regulated by the SRA (no. 800525). How that affects what you read.

No Win No Fee

Think you have a claim? Time limits apply, so get a free case review from Edward & Amaury Solicitors today.

Start your claim

Institutional Abuse and Vicarious Liability Claims

England & WalesLast reviewed 18 September 2026

An institution can be held responsible for abuse by someone connected with it through vicarious liability, where the abuse was closely connected with the role it gave the abuser, or through its own negligence or a non-delegable duty. Courts have extended vicarious liability to relationships akin to employment, but not to independent contractors.

Vicarious Liability

Direct Answer: An organisation can be liable for an abuser's wrongdoing where there is a relationship between them akin to employment and the abuse was so closely connected with the role that it is fair and just to hold the organisation responsible.

In Lister v Hesley Hall [2001] UKHL 22 the House of Lords held a school-run boarding house liable for a warden's abuse of pupils, because the abuse was closely connected with the work he was employed to do. The Supreme Court in Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56 extended this to relationships akin to employment, so that institutions can be liable for people who were not technically employees. Barclays Bank v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13 confirmed the limits, holding that vicarious liability does not usually apply to an independent contractor whose work is not an integral part of the defendant's business.

Direct Duties

Even without vicarious liability, an institution may have breached its own duty of care, for example by failing to vet staff, ignoring earlier complaints, providing inadequate supervision or covering up. Schools also owe a non-delegable duty to pupils for activities they arrange, as the Supreme Court held in Woodland v Essex County Council [2013] UKSC 66.

Practical Issues

Practical hurdles include identifying the right legal entity after mergers or closures, tracing the insurer for the period, obtaining records and witnesses, and dealing with time limits. A solicitor experienced in institutional abuse claims can investigate these before you decide whether to proceed.

You do not have to decide about a legal claim before getting support. Specialist survivor services can help confidentially with counselling, practical needs and understanding your options, whatever you decide.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a school or church be sued for abuse by a member of staff or clergy?

Potentially, under vicarious liability where the abuse was closely connected with the abuser's role and the relationship is akin to employment, or for its own negligence, such as ignoring warnings.

What is vicarious liability?

Legal responsibility of one party for another's wrongful acts because of the relationship between them, typically employment or something akin to it, where the wrong is closely connected with the role.

Does it apply to volunteers and clergy?

It can. The Supreme Court has held that relationships akin to employment can support vicarious liability, and it has been applied to religious organisations, but the facts of each relationship matter.

What if the institution no longer exists?

Its liabilities may have passed to a successor, or its insurer may be traceable. Solicitors investigate corporate history and insurance records to find a defendant.

What if the abuser was an independent contractor?

Vicarious liability is less likely, although a direct negligence or non-delegable duty claim may still be possible. It depends on the relationship and the role.

Can an abuse claim be brought on a no win no fee basis?

Often, yes, where there is a defendant, such as an insured institution, that can be sued and the claim has reasonable prospects. Under a Conditional Fee Agreement you pay no solicitor fees if the claim fails, and QOCS normally protects you from the other side's costs. A success fee capped at 25% of general damages and past losses is deducted if it succeeds.

You May Also Be Interested In

Abuse Claims

The full abuse claims overview

Read more

Historic Abuse Claims

Claims for abuse long ago, and time limits

Read more

Care Home & Social Care Abuse Claims

Abuse of adults in care

Read more

Sexual Assault Compensation Claims

CICA and civil claims

Read more

How to Claim Criminal Injuries Compensation

The state CICA scheme

Read more

Where this applies: This page covers England and Wales. The rules in Scotland and Northern Ireland are different.

Sources for this page

Every rule stated above is based on the primary sources below. Each link goes to the legislation, court rule or regulator itself so you can check it. Last verified 18 September 2026.

  1. Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, s.58 (conditional fee agreements)

    The provision that makes CFAs lawful and enforceable. CFAs derive from this section, not from LASPO.

  2. Conditional Fee Agreements Order 2013, arts. 4–5 · in force from 1 April 2013

    Art. 4 caps the success fee at 100% of base costs. Art. 5 caps what may be taken from damages in personal injury at 25% of PSLA plus past pecuniary loss, net of CRU, at first instance.

  3. Civil Procedure Rules, Part 44 (incl. rr.44.13–44.17, QOCS)

    Qualified one-way costs shifting and its exceptions. Rule 44.14 was amended with effect from 6 April 2023.

  4. Limitation Act 1980, s.11 (personal injury actions)

    Three years from the date of the accident or the date of knowledge. Property damage such as a damaged vehicle is a separate claim with a longer six-year period under s.2.

  5. Limitation Act 1980, s.14 (date of knowledge)

    The three-year period can run from the 'date of knowledge': when you first knew the injury was significant and attributable to the act or omission alleged to be negligent. Central in delayed-diagnosis cases.

  6. Limitation Act 1980, s.28 (extension for disability)

    Time does not run while a person is a child or lacks capacity to conduct proceedings. For a child's personal injury claim the three years generally starts on their 18th birthday.

  7. Limitation Act 1980, s.33 (discretionary exclusion of time limit)

    A court can allow a personal injury claim to proceed out of time where it is equitable to do so. It is a discretion, not a right, and should not be relied on.

  8. Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22

    An employer can be vicariously liable for a deliberate sexual abuse committed by an employee where the wrongful acts were so closely connected with the employment that it is fair and just to hold the employer liable.

  9. Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56

    Extended vicarious liability to relationships 'akin to employment', so that an institution can be liable for abuse by someone who was not technically its employee.

  10. Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13

    Clarified the limits of vicarious liability: it does not extend to an independent contractor whose work is not an integral part of the defendant's business and carried out in the defendant's name.

  11. Woodland v Essex County Council [2013] UKSC 66

    A school authority owes a non-delegable duty of care to pupils for activities it arranges during school time, so it cannot escape liability by pointing to an independent contractor's negligence.

  12. Employers' Liability Tracing Office

    Industry database that can help trace a former employer's employers' liability insurer, including for old disease claims.

Who wrote and checked this page

Written and published by
Edward & Amaury Solicitors (Edward & Amaury Ltd, company no. 12195443), regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under no. 800525.
Legal review
Checked for England & Wales by Edward & Amaury Solicitors — Solicitors regulated by the SRA (no. 800525) (verify on the regulator’s register).Review is recorded against the firm. The individual reviewer is not named on this page.
Review dates
Last reviewed 18 September 2026. Next review due 18 March 2027.

Fee rules change. California’s medical malpractice fee limits changed on 1 January 2023, and the QOCS rules in England and Wales changed on 6 April 2023. If you spot something out of date, tell us — we publish corrections.

Think you have a claim? Find out for free.

Reading the rules is the first step. Most claims have strict deadlines, and evidence is easier to gather the sooner you act. Tell Edward & Amaury Solicitors what happened and get a free, no-obligation review of your situation.

  • Free, no-obligation case review: you decide what happens next
  • Many claims are handled on a no win, no fee basis if the firm accepts your case
  • Takes about two minutes, and you can start with just the basics

Where this applies: This page covers England and Wales. The rules in Scotland and Northern Ireland are different.

Sources for this page

Every rule stated above is based on the primary sources below. Each link goes to the legislation, court rule or regulator itself so you can check it. Last verified 2 August 2026.

  1. Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, s.58 (conditional fee agreements)

    The provision that makes CFAs lawful and enforceable. CFAs derive from this section, not from LASPO.

  2. Conditional Fee Agreements Order 2013, arts. 4–5 · in force from 1 April 2013

    Art. 4 caps the success fee at 100% of base costs. Art. 5 caps what may be taken from damages in personal injury at 25% of PSLA plus past pecuniary loss, net of CRU, at first instance.

  3. Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, ss.44–46 · in force from 1 April 2013

    Ended recoverability of success fees and ATE premiums from the losing party. Did not create or regulate CFAs.

  4. Civil Procedure Rules, Part 44 (incl. rr.44.13–44.17, QOCS)

    Qualified one-way costs shifting and its exceptions. Rule 44.14 was amended with effect from 6 April 2023.

Who wrote and checked this page

Written and published by
Edward & Amaury Solicitors (Edward & Amaury Ltd, company no. 12195443), regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under no. 800525.
Legal review
This page has not yet been through independent legal review. It is written from the primary sources listed below, which you can check directly.
Review dates
Last reviewed 2 August 2026. Next review due 2 February 2027.

Fee rules change. California’s medical malpractice fee limits changed on 1 January 2023, and the QOCS rules in England and Wales changed on 6 April 2023. If you spot something out of date, tell us — we publish corrections.