ABC & Anor v XYZ

The first Claimant (C1) had a relationship with the Defendant (D) and they had a son, the second Claimant (C2).

For the hearing I was provided with a skeleton argument from the Claimants, 11 bundles and a statement of costs for each Claimant. An anonymity order was granted by Hill J on 16.10.2023 and a freezing injunction was granted over the Defendant’s assets on the same date. His property is called “X” in this judgment. It is unusual to anonymise the Defendant’s name in personal injury actions but if he had been named then the public and the Press could have jigsaw identified his son, C2 and hence C1.

The Claimants sue the Defendant for damages for personal injuries caused by domestic abuse, battery, assault, harassment, controlling and coercive behaviour, attempted kidnap of C2, burglary, criminal damage and breach of restraining orders and prohibited steps orders. The Defendant has a drink and drugs problem. Eventually, the Defendant was imprisoned because of his crimes against C1 and C2, but he did not stop harassing the Claimants by communication from prison. He was released, the last time, in September 2024 and continued irregular harassment via third parties. The Claimants have had to move home more than once and C2 has had to move schools more than once. All this has caused C1 to suffer serious psychiatric conditions and some minor physical injuries. C2 has also suffered moderately severe psychiatric conditions. His education has been decimated and he lives in fear of being kidnapped again. He is also recorded as having harassed and assaulted his family and one other female partner.

Default judgment was entered in May 2024, so this is the assessment of quantum in the two claims. The issues are:

At the start of the hearing the Claimants applied for the trial to go ahead despite the Defendant having failed to attend. I gave an extempore judgment on that application. In short, I exercised the Court’s power under CPR r.39.3(1) and ordered that the trial should go ahead. Adjournment would probably not have brought the Defendant to Court. I ruled that the Defendant had been served at X several times, had not communicated either with the Court or the Claimants’ lawyers at all, had gathered no evidence, served no evidence and had attend only one hearing, by video, from prison. I ruled that he had been served with notice of the trial and found that he had decided not to attend. I have previously ruled that C1 could give her evidence live by video just in case he was going to attend. In any event, due to the Courts Act 2003 S.s 85 G and H, the Defendant would not have been allowed to cross examine C1, face to face, and would have needed a lawyer or someone else to do so.

On the 1st of December 2015 a restraining order was made against the Defendant protecting C1. On the 14th of November 2018 a prohibited steps order was made against the Defendant protecting C1. On the 17th of April 2020 a life-long restraining order was imposed on the Defendant protecting C1.

On the 4th of October 2022 C1, without lawyers, issued a claim form against the Defendant on her behalf and on behalf of C2. Her particulars of claim were dated the 3rd of October 2022. Later she was permitted to amend them and the details of the claim on liability will be set out below, under the heading liability. She sought damages and provisional damages against the Defendant as a result of the torts which she alleged he had perpetrated on her. On behalf of C2 she made an intertwined claim for damages for personal injuries. At trial the claim for provisional damages was abandoned.

On the 16th of October 2023, Hill J made an anonymity order protecting the Claimants and a freezing order relating to the Defendant’s property in Essex (X). The Defendant was served in prison whilst he was in prison. Permission was given to the Claimant to file more detailed particulars of claim and a schedule. On the 4th of November 2023 amended particulars of claim and a schedule were filed and served.

On the 26th of January 2024 Martin Spencer J continued the freezing order and the Defendant appeared by video link at that hearing. Default judgment was entered on the 23rd of May 2024 due to the Defendant having failed to serve either a defence or an acknowledgement of service. Thus, no point was taken on limitation. Master Brown gave the main directions in June 2024 and the Claimants’ solicitors came on record in July 2024. At the end of July Master Brown directed that the Claimant should serve the Defendant with the updated schedule by October 2024. The Defendant was served whilst he was in prison. He was released on the 17th of September 2024. On the 29th of October 2024 Master Brown adjourned the case management conference and ordered that the Defendant could be served at prison for onward posting to his new address, because at that time nobody at the Claimants’ solicitors knew his address. In 2025 the prison service informed the Claimant that the Defendant was living at property X and therefore the schedule and medical reports were served there. In March 2025, at the CMC, Master Brown found that service on the Defendant at property X was good service and ruled that, going forwards, service would be on the Defendant at property X. The documents were all served there, including the final schedule of loss dated 11th September 2025 and the notice of listing details so the trial could be listed by agreement. The Defendant did not respond to any communication in the whole of the proceedings, either to the Court or to the Claimants’ solicitors. The trial was eventually listed by a notice dated the 21st of January 2026. The bundles were served on the Defendant at X on the 19th of March 2026 with a reminder of the hearing date and he did not respond. I am satisfied that the Defendant been properly served and knew of the trial date.

I set out below a brief summary of the rather harrowing details set out in the Claimants’ particulars of claim, all of which I find proven, because judgment was entered in default on the amended particulars of claim and because the Defendant has not disputed any of the assertions therein. I interleave, with the particulars of claim, evidence from the first Claimant's witness statement, which I accept. C1’s relationship with the Defendant started in 2011. She fell pregnant by him and he turned abusive during her pregnancy. He was coercive and controlling and made constant accusations of infidelity. He would grab her phone and check her social media sites. He would kick C1 when he was angry and would make suicide threats. On one occasion, when they went out with friends, he bent her fingers back under the table. On another, he hit her with a pole. He was often on drugs, including cocaine, which he sometimes took in a shed in the garden. He would burst into her bedroom with a knife, disturbing her sleep, alleging infidelity and searching for imaginary lovers in the cupboards. He would interrogate her interminably about infidelity, five nights out of seven. When he was drugged up, he would smash plates and other household items. C1 lived in constant fear. The Defendant would demand sex when she did not wish to give it to him. On various occasions he threw her out of the house. During their relationship the Defendant regularly visited prostitutes and this diminished the first Claimant’s self-respect. C1 tried to end the relationship many times and in response the Defendant variously strangled her, grabbed her and kicked her. Eventually, by January 2014, the C1 had thrown him out so he moved to his mother's house. C1 put his clothes and belongings in bags. He set light to the bags, punched C1 and threw a photo frame at her. He cut her arm and smashed up the house. He was arrested. Bail conditions were imposed on the Defendant which he then breached. The Defendant broke back into her property. In 2014, on a Spanish holiday, the Defendant assaulted C1 and the Spanish police arrested him. The Defendant punched the Claimant who became unconscious. By 2014 C2 was put on the Social Security at risk register. The Defendant threatened to ruin the whole of C1’s family. In September 2014 the first Claimant moved out to a friend’s house. The Defendant thereafter attacked C1 in the town centre and threatened to kill her by strangulation. He then stole C1's car, was pursued by the police and crashed the car. He was charged with drink driving. The Defendant made many phone threats to C1 from prison. In March 2015 C1 found a new private rental but the Defendant stalked that address and, in a drug induced psychosis, broke in and smashed up the contents and stole some. C1 had to leave the new address and the Defendant was sent to prison again. A restraining order was imposed on the Defendant in 2015. In June 2016 C1 had to move again and the Defendant again stalked her at her new premises, then assaulted her by kicking a door into her face, causing facial scarring. In November 2016 the Defendant violently tried to strangle C1 and the police were called. In 2017, during family proceedings over contact or access to C2, CAFCASS staff were concerned about the Defendant using drugs and sleeping with prostitutes and advised against access. Moving forwards to October 2019 the Family Court refused the Defendant face to face contact with C2. In November 2019, a woman came to C1's property and pleaded for the Defendant to have contact with the C2. During this discussion the Defendant burst in, assaulted C1, went up to the second Claimant’s bedroom, grabbed him and ran towards the exit. He was stopped by a local cafe owner. The Defendant threatened to kill C1. Whilst C1 and C2 were at the police station they saw the Defendant at the police station during processing for the assault and attempted kidnapping. The Defendant was found guilty of breaching the restraining order and assault. The charge of attempted kidnapping was left on file. The Defendant was imprisoned either in late 2019 or early 2020. Since then he has tried to contact the 1st and 2nd Claimant using third parties or other means of communication.

I heard evidence from C1 by video and read her witness statement and the expert medical reports set out below. In her live evidence C1 informed me that her educational and employment history was as follows. She had left school at 16 and then gone to high school/college between 2005 and 2007. She then attended Southend College but dropped out in 2008. She then attended East London College to study media but dropped out after a year in 2009. She started as a care worker at the care organisation shown on her tax records and earned £3,190 in the tax year 2010 to 2011. Then she changed to work in the family Bureau De Change where, in the tax year 2011 to 2012, she earned approximately £14,000 and in 2012 - 2013 she earned approximately the same sum. In the tax year 2013 - 2014 she only earned £2,100 or thereabouts because she was getting into difficulties with the Defendant and C1 gave birth to the C2 on the 10th of August 2013. She took maternity leave of approximately 9 months. She never truly got back to work after that as a result of the violence and abuse from the Defendant and her psychiatric difficulties, as I shall explain below.

C1’s evidence was that, but for the Defendant’s violence and abuse, she would have gone back to full time work after her maternity leave and C2 would have been cared for by her grandparents, who had in fact brought C1 up. In any event, he went to preschool. She is not sure what she would have done because the family Bureau De Change business closed within a year or two of her stopping work. She developed an interest in doing a psychology degree in 2019 and entered counselling training, but those interests arose as a result of her suffering from the Defendant’s tortious behaviour. I do not make a finding that she would have chosen those routes but for the Defendant’s torts. In any event, she did not complete either course. She told me that it is likely she would have gone back into office-based work, perhaps in a bank, or using her office manager skills, in multiple similar roles. She had managed 2 to 3 employees when she was working in the family business. She gave evidence that she would have worked until normal retirement age but for the domestic violence.

As to the effects of the Defendant’s torts on C1, these will be set out in the summaries I make of the medical reports below, but in her own words she asserts that she suffers post-traumatic stress disorder and has obsessive compulsive disorder syndrome symptoms, together with depression, anxiety and hyper vigilance, nightmares, flashbacks, insomnia, guilt and shame. The Defendant’s release from prison in September 2024 also led to further fear and an increase in the Claimants’ symptoms. C1 is scared every time somebody knocks on the door. During the more recent family court proceedings in 2025, the Defendant threatened to kidnap C2 again and made some of those threats during a hearing. That caused a recrudescence of both Claimants’ symptoms.

As for C1’s residual earning capacity, this is evidenced in the past by her inability to work in any meaningful way since 2014. Now, she does a little bit of beauty work for family and friends. She is worried about expanding that business because if more people come to her house the Defendant might find out where she lives and if she worked in a salon the Defendant might find out where that work was. She earns between £75 and £270 per month and is too afraid to increase her work due to the risk of the Defendant finding out where she is or where C2 is at school.

As for C2, C1 asserts he is suffering post-traumatic stress disorder, mood disturbance, depression, anxiety and fear. He sleeps with his mother, despite the fact he is age 12. He has changed schools many times, the last time just after the Defendant was released from prison. These conditions cause him low self-esteem and he has difficulty making friends. He cannot have friends round to his house for fear that his father will find out where he lives. He is never allowed outside alone. His mother drops him off and picks him up from school. He has been regularly bullied at school. Each time the bullying gets serious his mother takes him away from school. He has not had much treatment despite the advice in the expert reports, to which I shall refer below. The reason explained by C1 in her evidence is that he has recently had to change schools again and she needed to settle him in again. Serious treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder, involving EMDR, is exhausting and she wants him to have settled down before he focuses on that treatment.

Looking to the future, C1 struggles to see light at the end of the tunnel. She stated that her symptoms had not changed since mid 2025 and had worsened leading up to the date of the contact hearing. She had not yet started on the serious therapy recommended by Doctor Payne, including EMDR. She had paid for some lower level counselling including preparation for EMDR. She had found it helpful but exhausting and so realises how important it will be to focus wholly on that therapy when she starts it. She sleeps poorly. She is afraid all the time. When I asked why she did not move away from the area she responded that she could not leave her grandparents, whom she loved and who love C2. They are in their 80s and they are unwell. She is their support system and they are her support system and they provide support for C2. The Protection Orders that she has in place are to keep the Defendant away from various addresses and from her grandparents’ house. The police have a red flag alert system in place if the Defendant turns up any of the relevant properties. In September of 2025 the first Claimant was approached by a friend of the Defendant in the High Street where she lives who had tried to pressurise her into allowing the Defendant to see his son. In addition, the Defendant's partner emailed C1 in 2025, to put pressure on her. She finds these contacts triggering for her. She is not sure if the Defendant has found out where C2 is currently at school and is afraid, if he does, about what will happen. C2 has special educational needs. Although he has shown some emotional improvement he is still scared of his father.

I asked C1 what she would do when C2 reaches the age of 18 or 25. Would she anticipate that the risk from the Defendant to her would decrease when C2 is an adult? C1 was afraid that the Defendant would still be angry at her and does not think that the Defendant will ever stop being angry at her.

In relation to her residual earning capacity if, in future, the risk from the Defendant reduces and she can get back to full time work, C1 advised that although she currently would like to do coaching, if she did full-time beauty therapy, working 35 to 40 hours per week, she might be able to earn £800 per week, net of expenses.

C1 is also scared that this litigation will increase the risk for her by angering the Defendant. Once judgement is obtained C1 intends to enforce it on property X which the Defendant owns and she fears that he will react with anger.

C1 accepted, when I asked her, that she had been awarded £26,000 by the CICA. She had made a claim for C2 but when the instructed solicitors firm shut down, she did not continue the claim and it was never completed.

I was favourably impressed by the way that C1 gave her evidence. Despite all that she has been through, the way that she presented was not exaggerated nor was it over emotional. I accept all that she told me. I take into account that she was not put under pressure through cross examination but I did myself ask some quite searching questions and I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that her account of events is true.

In relation to C1, there is no expert evidence of her physical injuries, nor was I shown any photo of the scar on her head. There is no report from a consultant psychiatrist. However, there are three reports from Doctor Louise Payne, a clinical psychologist. In her first report, dated June 2020, she recorded that she had read C1’s GP and hospital notes. In her opinion, C1 had no prior psychiatric history. The psychiatric symptoms emerged after the Defendant’s first domestic violence assaults. Doctor Payne advised that C1’s psychiatric conditions were solely attributable to the abuse and assaults. She gave two diagnoses: post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). She made no reference to DSM V or ICD 10 criteria. Doctor Payne advised that the conditions have had a significant effect both on C1’s social and her occupational functioning. C1 finds it difficult to trust men and to socialise and her fears have effectively prevented her from working. As to the details of the C1’s suffering, initially the Defendant was romantic and attentive, but by June 2012 he was jealous and started assaulting her. He became paranoid about her being unfaithful to him. There were multiple incidents in which he accused C1 of being unfaithful over the most minor of household triggers, for instance a kettle was moved by a few inches which led to the Defendant asserting that she had entertained a lover in the house. C1 felt very frightened by his anger. He belittled her by inspecting her underwear for indications of infidelity and he repeatedly interrogated her. Often those interrogations led to violence. She was woken up in the small hours of the morning with such allegations. She suffered repeated punches, kicks and was on occasion pushed down stairs. C1 was forced to have sex with the Defendant against her will. She reported his abuse to the police on many occasions. He was excluded from their shared property many times. There were 14 reports to the police in the the period between 2012 and 2013. The cycle would be: accusations of infidelity, interrogation, violent abuse, report to the police, remorse, apologies, guilt, resumption of relationship and then repeat. They separated finally in 2014 and thereafter C1 did allow some contact between the Defendant and the C2, however the C2 had witnessed much of the abuse which C1 had suffered before and after they separated and eventually the C1 obtained a restraining order in 2015. Even after he was sent to prison (before 2019) he still contacted C1 via third parties, so she felt constantly watched and scrutinised. By October 2019 the family court ordered that the Defendant would have no more face to face contact with the C2. The month after that order the Defendant attempted to kidnap C2. He violently assaulted C1 in her own property and tried to run away with C2. This was a particularly traumatic event for both of the Claimants. It happened one morning. The Defendant used a woman to trick the first Claimant into opening the door. He then burst in and assaulted her and grabbed C2 from his bedroom. Local café owners stopped him running off with C2. The Defendant was eventually arrested and imprisoned.

In my judgment, the abuse of C1 by the Defendant can be split up into the following periods:

The symptoms which C1 suffered as a result of this abuse are listed in detail in the first report. Whilst living together, she suffered constant anxiety and fear of his moods and violence. She developed OCD relating to reciting “protection prayers” as if they could help to protect her and re-ordering objects around the house so that they were “right” so that she would have a good day. She suffered insomnia, which she had never suffered before. She felt frightened that he would wake her up in the night and start the cycle of abuse. She suffered hypervigilance. She became his sexual slave and used sex as a pacifying tool to calm him down. She was frightened when he attacked her. She was frightened all the time after they split up, in particular when he broke into her various properties. She suffered nightmares for herself and for the kidnapping of her son (after 2019). She suffered depression and low mood, lack of confidence and guilt. Coincidentally, she also developed multiple body pains which were never formally diagnosed. She self-funded a course of hypnotherapy in 2017 which was ineffective. She underwent a course of cognitive behavioural therapy in 2019 but after that she was assaulted again.

Currently, C1 is avoidant of going out. She takes her son to school and collects him, for his protection. She has low self-esteem, impaired motivation and low concentration. She has tried a relationship with one new man but the Defendant warned him off and so she has been unable to form permanent relationships.

Treatment: Doctor Payne recommended 20 to 25 sessions of focused PTSD cognitive behavioural therapy together with eye movement desensitisation reprocessing therapy (EMDR) and narrative exposure therapy (NET).

As for the prognosis, Doctor Payne advised that the C1 has been able to maintain her home and care for her child. After the recommended treatment Doctor Payne advised that C1 will engage in hobbies and social life significantly better in future. As for work, Doctor Payne advised that the torts have caused C1's inability to work, but advised that after successful completion of the recommended trauma focused intervention, C1 will be able to work in future.

In her second report dated October 2024, Doctor Payne noted that C1 had self-paid for 118 sessions of therapy, which was helpful. She had found the EMDR element of it exhausting. She would try to avoid EMDR in future. She noted that C1’s GP had prescribed: Zopiclone (for insomnia, dependency problems, stopped June 2019, restarted after attempted kidnapping); Mitrapazine (felt too groggy). Doctor Payne noted that the Defendant had been released from prison in 2021 and later detained twice more in prison and released the last time in September 2024. C1 remain terrified and anxious, with very poor sleep. She lived in fear. She had been receiving “heavy breathing” calls. She did not feel adequately protected. She was too anxious to increase her work, either at home (due to the risk of the Defendant finding out her address) or in a salon (due to the risk of him finding out her place of work). Doctor Payne did not provide a proper prognosis in that report. She recommended EMDR and trauma focussed CBT in 25 sessions which would lead to a “significant improvement”. However, she did not anticipate or assess the future risk of relapse if the Defendant again threatens or attacks either C1 or C2 or causes C2 to move school again or causes C1 to have to move accommodation again. Doctor Payne stated that the Defendant is a significant threat to C1’s safety.

In her third report, having been asked to explain her prognosis more clearly, Doctor Payne advised that the 118 sessions of therapy had not improved C1’s conditions. She estimated that, after 25 more focussed sessions of trauma-based therapy, C1’s symptoms would not resolve. Instead C1 would likely still be afraid and hypervigilant and will take steps to minimise the “perceived risk” and this perception will have an indefinite continuing impact on her earnings.

I asked C1 why she had not moved away from the area where the Defendant lives and whether she would feel less afraid once D2 grows up, say at age 18 or age 25. She was unsure of how she would feel. She asserted that she could not leave her grandparents for whom she cared.