The long-awaited judgment in TWG v The Scout Association was handed down this week on 19 August 2026. This case represents a significant case in the law relating to abuse claims, and the decision provides important guidance for survivors of childhood sexual abuse pursuing claims against organisations whose employees or volunteers abused their position of trust and authority.

What happened in this case?

The Claimant, referred to as ‘TWG’ for anonymity, was a member of a Cub Scout group in Somerset between 1966 and 1969. He was aged 10 during the period of abuse. The perpetrator was an Assistant Cub Scout Leader, ‘Grubb’.

The Claimant attended weekly Cub Scout meetings. The perpetrator came to know him through those meetings and occupied a position of authority within the Scout group.

On a series of occasions, the perpetrator followed the Claimant as he walked home after Cubs and sexually assaulted him. The assaults occurred repeatedly over approximately five to six months.

The first assault occurred only around eight to ten minutes after the Claimant had left the Scout Hut. The perpetrator was still wearing his Scout uniform when he approached him.

The Claimant described how Grubb presented himself as a trusted adult who would make sure that he got home safely before taking him to a secluded area and assaulting him. The assaults were then repeated on approximately 10 to 12 occasions.

The evidence also showed that the Scout Association was aware at the time that the perpetrator had sexually assaulted children. Its records indicated that the perpetrator was dismissed as an Assistant Cub Scout Leader.

Why is this case significant?

For those bringing claims involving Scouts and other organisations under the cause of action of vicarious liability, one aspect of the judgment is particularly significant.

The abuse in this case did not take place during a Scout meeting. It did not take place on Scout premises. It happened while the Claimant, then aged just 10, was walking home after scouts had ended.

Crucially, the Scout Association argued that this took the case outside the scope of vicarious liability and ultimately the High Court disagreed.

Vicarious liability

The Scout Association admitted the underlying criminal assault but denied that it was vicariously liable. Its argument was straightforward; namely, that the perpetrator was an Assistant Cub Scout Leader but his authorised role was to assist with Scout meetings and that he had not been given responsibility for the Claimant's journey home.

The assaults in this case happened only:

• after the Scout meeting had finished;
• away from Scout premises;
• while the Claimant was travelling home; and
• in circumstances which, the Defendant argued, were outside anything the perpetrator had been authorised to do.

The Defendant therefore argued that there was no sufficiently close connection between the perpetrator’s role and the assaults in order to make them liable.

This was an important argument as, had it succeeded, it could have created significant difficulties in cases where abuse occurred away from the organisation's premises or outside formal activities, particularly where the defendant sought to characterise the organisation's role as providing no more than the opportunity for the perpetrator to meet the child.

The Court's approach to Stage 2

The law of vicarious liability involves a two-stage test.

The first stage concerns the relationship between the defendant and the wrongdoer. In TWG, it was common ground that this stage was satisfied.

Importantly, the dispute in this case was about Stage 2: whether the wrongful conduct was sufficiently closely connected with the acts the perpetrator was authorised, entrusted or expected to perform that it could fairly and properly be regarded as having been committed in the course of the relevant employment (or quasi- employment).

The judge emphasised that this is a fact-sensitive assessment.

Importantly, however, the Court also recognised that cases involving the sexual abuse of children require particular attention to the authority, trust, responsibility and power which an organisation has entrusted to the perpetrator. That is crucial as it means it is not simply a question of, ‘Where did the abuse happen?’, or ‘Was the perpetrator technically "on duty" at the precise moment of the abuse?’. Instead, the Court must consider the relationship realistically and in the round meaning they will consider the facts of each case in turn.

Abuse occurring away from the organisation's premises is not necessarily outside vicarious liability

The judgment is particularly helpful on this issue. As the judge put it, the critical issue is the connection between the wrongdoing and the functions entrusted to the perpetrator. That meant the fact that the abuse occurred on the Claimant's journey home did not, by itself, answer the vicarious liability question.

What made the difference in TWG?

The Court identified a number of factors which pointed towards vicarious liability in child sexual abuse cases.

These included:

• responsibility for children being entrusted to the perpetrator;
• authority, influence or supervisory functions over the claimant;
• trust developing because of the perpetrator's role;
• access to the claimant being obtained through that position;
• the claimant being selected because they belonged to the class of children entrusted to the perpetrator; and
• the abuse forming part of a continuing process which began with the perpetrator's activities in the entrusted role.

Those factors were all significant in this case considered by the judge when coming to a decision in the claim. The perpetrator knew the Claimant because he was a Cub Scout under his supervision. He occupied a position of trust and authority because of his role.

That role enabled him to develop a relationship with the Claimant, gain his confidence, learn about his circumstances and movements and obtain access to him.

Ultimately, the judge accepted that the perpetrator used that position on the first occasion by presenting himself as a trusted adult who would ensure that the Claimant got home safely. The abuse was therefore not viewed as a completely independent act which happened to follow a Scout meeting. It was an abuse of the position which the organisation had entrusted to the perpetrator. The fact that it happened on the walk home was not decisive which is the most important aspect of the judgment for prospective claimants who look to bring claims of a similar nature against the Scouts or other organisations.

The Court expressly recognised that the assaults did not take place at Cub meetings and did not take place on Scout premises, but those facts did not prevent a finding of vicarious liability, as it was considered that the relevant chain of events began at the Cub meetings, arose from the relationship established there and depended upon the authority, trust and opportunity the perpetrator derived from his role.

Additionally, it was considered how the assaults also occurred very close to the Scout Hut and within minutes of the Claimant leaving the meeting and as such the Court ultimately found that it was not a coincidence that the Claimant was targeted, finding that he was selected because he was a Cub Scout known to the perpetrator through the perpetrator’s position as Assistant Cub Scout Leader. The process by which the perpetrator gained the Claimant's trust, identified his vulnerability and obtained access to him was found by the High Court to have been linked with that role.

What does this mean for survivors?

The judgment does provide precedent for future abuse claims that Stage 2 test remains fact-sensitive and will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Essentially, TWG is an important reminder that the Court will look beyond the precise location and timing of the assault.

Although TWG concerned the Scout Association, the reasoning is not limited to abuse only occurring within this organisation, and the underlying principles will be relevant to other claims involving organisations which place adults in positions of authority, responsibility or trust over children.

Depending on the facts, that may include claims involving:

• youth organisations;
• schools and educational institutions;
• sports clubs and coaches;
• religious organisations;
• children's homes and residential institutions;
• care homes;
• youth groups;
• charities;
• community organisations; and
• other organisations involving adults entrusted with responsibility for children.

Every case will turn on its own facts and the particular relationship between the perpetrator, the organisation and the survivor. But the judgment provides an important example of why it is necessary to examine how the relationship came about, rather than simply identifying where the abuse ultimately occurred.

The judgment also highlights the long-term impact of childhood abuse

The Claimant was 10 years old when the abuse occurred, and he did not disclose the abuse to his wife until 2023. The Court accepted evidence of longstanding shame, self-blame, intrusive memories, nightmares, difficulties with trust and intimacy, low mood and other psychological consequences extending across much of his adult life.

The judge ultimately found that the abuse caused PTSD and recurrent depressive disorder and that those conditions had persisted, albeit with varying degrees of severity, over many years.

The damages awarded in this claim totalled £95,500 compromising £80,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, which is significant and reflects the substantial impact the injury had on the claimant’s quality of life.

A further important development: limitation

There is another significant feature of this judgment, namely limitation.

The claim was originally brought many decades after the abuse. The Claimant had therefore sought the court's discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980.

However, while the judgment was awaiting hand-down, the law changed: The Crime and Policing Act 2026 introduced sections 11ZA and 11ZB into the Limitation Act 1980, removing the limitation period for civil claims for personal injuries attributable to child sexual abuse, subject to the statutory provisions concerning whether a fair hearing is possible.

In this case, both parties accepted that the new provisions applied to this claim, and the Defendant did not contend that a fair hearing was impossible. The limitation issue therefore fell away.

This does, however, remain a potentially highly significant for survivors considering whether they can bring a civil claim many years after childhood abuse and is again something that needs to be considered when bringing a claim of this nature.

If you were abused by someone in a position of trust, it may be worth taking legal advice

One of the difficulties survivors can face is assuming that they cannot bring a claim because:

• the abuse happened many years ago;
• the perpetrator was a volunteer rather than an employee;
• the abuse happened away from the organisation's premises;
• it happened after an activity had finished;
• the perpetrator was not formally responsible for the child's journey home; or
• the perpetrator acted for their own sexual gratification.

The judgment in TWG demonstrates why those matters should not necessarily be treated as the end of the enquiry. The legal test requires a careful examination of the relationship between the perpetrator, the organisation and the survivor, and the circumstances in which the abuse occurred.

Seeking advice

If you suffered abuse as a child by someone who held a position of authority or trust through an organisation, you may be entitled to bring a civil claim for compensation.

Our specialist abuse solicitors can assess the circumstances of your case, including whether an organisation may be legally responsible for the actions of the person who abused you.

You do not necessarily need to have reported the abuse to the police at the time. And the fact that many years have passed does not necessarily prevent a claim. We can advise you on these and other issues further to a discussion together to understand the circumstances.

If you would like confidential advice about whether you may have a claim arising from abuse by a scout leader, teacher, coach, youth worker, religious leader or another person in a position of trust, contact us for a confidential initial discussion.

Contact Hannah Hodgson at hannah.hodgson@switalskis.com  or Danielle Vincent at danielle.vincent@switalskis.com  , specialist abuse lawyers, for a confidential discussion about your legal rights.