A school has argued against a Civil Court ruling that approved of a trial on its handling of an historical sex abuse case.

The school, which cannot be named for legal reasons, appealed a June 2024 judgment that dismissed its strikeout application against a former student’s lawsuit.

Susan Rodway KC, for the appellant, argued on Tuesday that Acting Judge Alexandra Wheatley failed to fully consider her client’s application.

She added that a full trial could be prejudicial against her client because of the age of the claim.

Ms Rodway said: “She hasn’t clearly set out her reason for doing what she has done and defer an entire application to a full trial, when the whole issue is to avoid the costs and the time of a full trial.”

The former student, referred to as “AB”, alleged that she had been groomed and sexually abused by a former teacher at the school, referred to as “YZ”, between 1997 and 1999. She was aged 16 and 17 years at the time.

The alleged sustained abuse, according to AB, led to “psychiatric injury” including alcoholism and post-traumatic stress.

A lawsuit filed on October 2021 claimed that the school was aware of the inappropriate relationship but did nothing to end it — thus breaching its duty of care to her.

Ms Rodway argued in a strikeout application that the claim was “very stale” as it was filed more than 16 years after the primary limitation period, and should be thrown out.

She said that the Limitation Act 1984 calls for cases claiming personal injury or death, such as AB’s case, to be filed within six years of the alleged incident happening — the “primary limitation period”.

She acknowledged that the limitation period could be extended at the discretion of a judge if provided with enough evidence.

However, Ms Rodway further argued that the school held an investigation after hearing of the alleged abuse, thus making the claim “frivolous”.

Ms Justice Wheatley wrote in her judgment that she could not “properly or fairly” make a decision because she did not have all the evidence.

She added that because of this, a decision on the limitation period must be determined during a trial.

Ms Rodway argued on Tuesday that there was “substantial” evidence for her to exercise her discretion.

She added: “She did not really give reasons as to why she could not even commence that exercise. That’s why we say that she had erred.”

During the appeal, Ms Rodway reiterated her points in the strikeout application.

She argued that there was no evidence of grooming towards AB, and that at the time of the alleged offences, she had the ability to consent to the relationship with YZ.

Ms Rodway asserted that the school was not responsible for the alleged abuse because it was said to have also taken place outside work hours and its premises.

She added that there was no evidence of a disability that may have led to AB’s delayed filing of the claim.

Ms Rodway said that according to expert witnesses, the medical and psychiatric records supporting AB’s claim were “sparse” and “poorly documented”.

She added that much of the evidence came from AB herself, which she described as “self-serving” and likely inaccurate because of the age of the incident.

Victoria Greening, for AB, stood by the ruling.

She said that the justice system “rejects stale claims” and that a trial would determine the strength of their arguments.

She added: “It was not an easy case for the judge to look at — the first of its kind — under a strikeout application.”

Ms Greening reiterated her point from the 2024 hearing that the reasons for her client’s delay were “extensive” and must be heard during a trial.

She explained that her client had suffered from trauma for years before she learnt where it came from.

Ms Greening added that although her client consented to a relationship at the time, case law showed that “submission is not the same as consent”.

She explained that YZ had been in several positions of power, including as the respondent’s teacher, and that the school provided much of his access to her.

Ms Greening added: “I don’t think it’s impossible for the court to find evidence on grooming.

“The court will have to look closely, but it’s clear that a lot of this was done on school grounds and done because she was his student.”

The Court of Appeal will release a judgment at a later date.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers