25 [44] In such circumstances the room for the inference that counsel would have us draw must be very limited. The plaintiff obviously knew at all material times that the defendant was the physical agent of the abuse. Her expert witness expressly disavowed any possibility of suppression of her memory of the events. That of course does not mean that in adult life she was able to confront them willingly or with adequate comprehension. Nor does it prove that she knew or accepted that responsibility for the abuse lay with the defendant. The incidents in adulthood which counsel has cited are consistent with the plaintiff’s knowledge that the defendant had abused her, but they were visceral reactions falling short of rational appreciation that he rather than herself was the culpable party. It is more likely that the plaintiff developed insight, and with it the meaningful knowledge of the wrong that sets the prescriptive process in motion, only when the progressive course of self-discovery finally removed the blindfold she had worn since the malign influences which I have described took over her psyche. On the probabilities that did not occur until some time in 1997. The defendant’s counsel did not submit, correctly given the facts, that (to use the language of s 5(1)(c)) the plaintiff might reasonably have been expected to have had knowledge of the wrong before she acquired actual knowledge. [45] In the result the trial judge should have dismissed the special plea of prescription and proceeded to a consideration of the merits. It accordingly becomes unnecessary to consider the submissions of the plaintiff’s counsel that the plaintiff was disabled (within the meaning of s 7(1)(b) of the 1943 Act) from pursuing her claim until 1997 or was immune to the running of prescription because of common