In DBAK v The Governors of the Fettes Trust [2026] CSOH 5, Lord Young considered damages arising from historical sexual abuse at Fettes College and provided further judicial guidance on the assessment of loss of earnings and pension loss in abuse claims.
The court was required to determine the level of compensation payable to DBAK, a former pupil who was sexually abused by a teacher while attending Fettes Junior School in the late 1970s.
Liability was admitted. The only issue for determination was quantum, and whether, but for the abuse, DBAK would have performed better at school, obtained a degree, and earned significantly more over his working life.
DBAK claimed that as a result of the abuse he had “switched off” at school and performed poorly in exams. He stated that without the abuse, he would have gone to university and pursued a career in business, therefore his loss of earnings should be calculated on that hypothetical career path on a multiplier/ multiplicand basis.
His combined claim for past and future wage loss and pension loss exceeded £2,000,000.
The pursuer had a varied employment history, initially working in hospitality and retail before moving into financial services. He later established a property development business with his wife, which generated fluctuating, though sometimes substantial, profits.
Vocational expert evidence explored several alternative career pathways, including average earnings comparisons and senior managerial or director-level roles. Although the pursuer had periods of high income, his overall earnings record fell below the comparator models.
The defenders disputed that the abuse had caused any long‑term earning disadvantage. They emphasised that the pursuer later achieved entrepreneurial success and argued that his move from financial services into property development was a voluntary career decision, reflecting personal preference and commercial risk. It was not as a result of any limitation caused by psychological injury.
The pursuer also advanced a substantial claim for pension loss, supported by actuarial calculations. While the defenders did not challenge the actuarial methodology, they rejected the assumption that he would probably have pursued salaried employment with occupational pension benefits.
Lord Young stressed the inherent difficulty in reconstructing hypothetical career trajectories many decades after the events in question. While acknowledging that childhood abuse can have profound psychological consequences, the court reiterated that economic loss claims must be supported by evidence demonstrating a probable alternative career path, not one based on aspiration or speculation.
The court also attached weight to the fact that the pursuer did not attempt to pursue higher education later in life as a mature student and instead made a voluntary decision to develop a property business.
The pursuer’s siblings were considered relevant comparators, and the court observed that his exam results were not materially out of step with those of his older brother.
Lord Young stated: “The pursuer would be entitled to compensation for the loss of earning capacity brought about by the effect of the abuse, but the defenders are not liable to underwrite the profitability of his business in poor trading years. … even if the pursuer had obtained a business degree and embarked on the career modelled [by expert evidence] … there is a real chance that he would have chosen, at some stage, to move to a self-employed occupation”
He held that the absence of a business management degree did not place the pursuer at a significant disadvantage in accessing general business management roles.
Accordingly, Lord Young refused the claims for special damages (past and future earnings and pension loss) and made an award for general damages only.
This decision highlights the evidential and causation challenges commonly encountered in historical abuse litigation. Where the court is required to assess the trajectory of a claimant’s life over several decades in an effort to quantify lifelong losses, it cannot engage in speculation. A pursuer must establish a clear causal link between abuse and long-term financial disadvantage.
In this case the court recognised the “free choice” to embark on a chosen career path and noted that even if the pursuer had established, but for the abuse, he would have obtained a business management degree, any award would have been made on a broad‑brush Blamire basis- and at a much lower level than sought.
This decision builds on the approach taken in D v The Bishops Conference of Scotland 2022 SLT 816 and F v Chalmers 2025 CSOH 23, demonstrating that the court is unlikely to award loss of earnings on a multiplier/multiplicand basis in historic abuse cases.
Robbie McAdam - Solicitor
The service you deliver is integral to the success of your business. With the right technology, we can help you to heighten your customer experience, improve underwriting performance, and streamline processes.
