The plaintiff suffered injury walking a gangway onto a moored ship. Her solicitors failed to identify the owner of the ship, misspelling the name and failing to search in the General Register of Shipping and Seamen. The eventual claim was made outside the basic limitation period. Was the plaintiff fixed with knowledge under section 14(3)(b)? … Continue reading Henderson v Temple Pier Company Limited: CA 23 Apr 1998
The court was asked as to the extent and nature of knowledge required to start time running against a plaintiff in a negligence case.Purchas LJ said: ‘It is to be noted that a firm belief held by the plaintiff that his injury was attributable to act or omission of the defendant, but in respect of … Continue reading Nash v Eli Lilley and Co: CA 1993
The court preferred the more objective approach as to looking at when a plaintiff was to be fixed with knowledge of his injury: ‘If the purpose of section 14(3) is to create deemed or constructive knowledge in circumstances where there is no actual knowledge, it is highly improbable that Parliament intended that the application of … Continue reading Parry v Clwyd Health Authority: QBD 1996
The limitation period starts when a reasonable person would have sought medical help. Section 14(1)(b) requires that ‘one should look at the way the plaintiff puts his case, distil what he is complaining about and ask whether he had in broad terms knowledge of the facts on which that complaint is based’ at the appropriate … Continue reading Broadley v Guy Clapham and Co: CA 9 Sep 1993
A attended the defendant’s schools between 1977 and 1988. He had always experienced difficulties with reading and writing and as an adult found those difficulties to be an impediment in his employment. He believed them to be the cause of the depression, panic and lack of self-esteem which he suffered. He consulted his doctor about … Continue reading Adams v Bracknell Forest Borough Council: HL 17 Jun 2004
The claimant sought damages saying that he had been abused as a child whilst in the defendant’s care. The defendants appealed a finding that the claimant had not first known of his injury more than three years before begining his action. Held: The same word ‘reasonable’ in sections 14(2) and 14(3) of the 1980 Act … Continue reading Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) and Another v Young: CA 14 Nov 2006
The claimant had undergone heart surgery as an infant in 1976, and claimed damages for professional negligence. The procedure involved a dangerous procedure, a resection of coarctation. As a consequence, the Claimant suffered a number of problems associated with neurological deficit and partial paraplegia. Held: As to limitation, the knowledge required to satisfy s.14(1)(b) is … Continue reading Mirza v Birmingham Health Authority: QBD 31 Jul 2001
The plaintiff had a history of circulatory problems in his legs. He underwent surgery losing his leg. The question was when he should have sought advice as to why an attempted by-pass operation had resulted in one leg having to be amputated. He enquired why only some 10 years after the event. He was told … Continue reading Forbes v Wandsworth Health Authority: CA 21 Mar 1996
Limitation operates as a defence, and therefore it is for he who sets it up to establish it, and prove that the claim was time barred. Once the initial limitation period had elapsed, it was for the plaintiff to assert that the date of knowledge . .
The claimant had been a passenger in a car driven by his now partner. They had an accident in New South Wales. The car was insured in Australia. He sought leave to sue in England and Wales because Australian law would limit the damages.
Held: . .
