What can we help you with today?
“DBAK” v The Governors of the Fettes Trust
“DBAK” v The Governors of the Fettes Trust
PD459/23
Wednesday 11 November 2026
10:30 to 13:00 then 14:00 until conclusion
Second division
[1] The reclaimer was the victim of repeated sexual abuse at Fettes school in Edinburgh in the late 1970s. He raised these proceedings on the basis that the psychological consequence of the sexual abuse caused his academic attainment to suffer. He maintained that but for the abuse, he would not have become disengaged with his studies, and he would have attained the necessary qualifications to pursue his ambition to study at university. He argues that, had he done so, he would have worked in a professional occupation with more sustained periods of employment with higher earnings and an occupational pension.
[2] The Lord Ordinary found that that the reclaimer developed symptoms of PTSD at the time of the sexual abuse, but that the symptoms had diminished within a year or so of the abuse ending. He was satisfied that by the time he left Fettes in the mid-1980s he was largely symptom free.
[3] The Lord Ordinary awarded solatium in the sum of £40,000 (£35,000 for past suffering and £5,000 for future suffering) with interest thereon in the sum of £57,604. He made no award for wage loss or any other patrimonial loss. The Lord Ordinary held that the reclaimer failed to prove that if his schooling had not been disrupted by the abuse, he would have successfully negotiated the steps to gain a university degree. He also held that the reclaimer had failed to establish a causal link between the abuse and his lack of a university degree on which to build a professional career.
[4] The reclaimer advances five grounds of appeal. First, he maintains that the Lord Ordinary erred in his assessment of solatium whereby he failed to have proper regard to the age of the reclaimer at the time of the abuse, the circumstances of the abuse, the abuse of trust, the effect of the abuse on the reclaimer’s education and the lifelong memories of the abuse. Secondly, it is argued that the Lord Ordinary erred in failing to award interest on the solatium for the period of the abuse. Thirdly, the reclaimer challenges the Lord Ordinary’s decision not to make any award for patrimonial loss. Fourthly, he challenges various miscellaneous findings in fact made by the Lord Ordinary, such as his finding that the reclaimer’s exam results were “marginally poorer” than what they would have been as a result of the abuse. Finally, the reclaimer maintains that the Lord Ordinary based parts of his Opinion on matters not put to the reclaimer at the proof.
[5] The Second Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session will hear the reclaiming motion on Wednesday 11 November 2026 at 10:30am.