Since the claimants’ high water mark case on limitation, A v Hoare in [2008] , the issue of time limit limits has been weaponised by defendants. In the 18 years between 2008 until now defendants have fought back ferociously. Defendants have tried to bully claimants into dropping cases or into accepting paltry damages due to delay. Gullible judges have supported these unfair arguments. We’re now at the stage at which the case of CD v CCWS [2018] gives the test at paragraph 79 as “real possibility of significant prejudice”).

For 18 years limitation has been an unwelcome presence in the minds of claimant lawyers when advising clients in non-recent sex abuse cases. It could mean total failure of cases or at very least having to concede a litigation risk discount when settling. Claimants have lost millions of pounds. It has been incredibly unfair to claimants who have suffered the psychological effects of child sexual abuse. Confusion, fear of being disbelieved, fear of adverse reactions from family and friends, avoidance, re-traumatisation, anxiety and depression. All these things militate against disclosure in most cases. The team at Switalskis try to make it as easy as possible for claimants to seek justice, yet harsh treatment from defendants has put many claimants off.

Thankfully delay caused by the abuse was understood by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), chaired by Alexis Jay, which made amendment of the law on limitation a key recommendation in its final report.

David Greenwood has been at the forefront of getting the law on limitation changed. David was one of the lawyers giving evidence to the Inquiry. He remains a key advisor to the act on IICSA group which campaigns for the implementation of all 20 of the IICSA recommendations.

Finally, the Crime and Policing Bill was published in 2025 but the proposed change on limitation would have made things even worse for claimants. It introduced new tests of substantial prejudice and equity. The proposed tests were woolly, open to a wide interpretation and likely to lead to further rounds of satellite litigation. Altering the Bill’s proposed wording is where David‘s knowledge and expertise were so effective. Labour MPs and labour peers he spoke to understandably had very little knowledge of the law on limitation. When the law reached the House of Lords, David Greenwood was in contact with a friendly labour peer, Ayesha Hazarika, who in turn put him in touch with Baroness Royall. David was joined in calls with Jan Royall by the Association of Child Abuse Lawyers’ president, Peter Garsden, and they were able to educate the two peers who then fed in concerns about the draft legislation to the government minister in the Lords, Baroness Alison Levitt.

After a couple of weeks of nervous wait between committee sessions, Baroness Levitt came back with the message she agreed our draft would be incorporated into the final Bill and that the government would approve it.

This can be hailed as another great victory in David’s long history of campaigning for child abuse victims’ rights. The retention of legal aid for child sex abuse victims, the exemption of child sex abuse cases from the fixed recoverable costs regime and now an improved law on limitation shows David Greenwood can get things done.