The claimant sought an extension of the limitation period to allow him to pursue an action. He sought damages for negligence against his former school which had failed to diagnose and treat his dyslexia.
Held: His appeal was denied. The claim was one for personal injury, but the question of whether to extend the time period is one for a judge’s discretion. The prejudice to the claimant in being denied the right to bring an action must not be over-emphasised. Here, the long delay meant also that the defendant would have great difficulty in unearthing its records to defend its action. There were no grounds for interfering with the judge’s discretion. As to whether a failue to ameliorate dyslexia could constitute a personal injury: ‘Dyslexia . . may itself be an ‘impairment of a person’s mental condition’. It is not of course caused by the defendant; but negligent failure to ameliorate the consequences of dyslexia by appropriate teaching may be said to continue the injury, in the same way that the negligent failure to cure or ameliorate a congenital physical condition so that it continues, could give rise to an action for personal injuries. Although as I understand it dyslexia cannot be cured, a dyslexic person can be trained to overcome the difficulties in reading and writing which he experiences.’
Judges:
Lords Justice Peter Gibson and Brooke and Sir Murray Stuart-Smith
Citations:
Gazette 10-Oct-2002, [2003] PIQR P128, [2002] EWCA Civ 1099
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Adams v Bracknell Forest Borough Council CA 6-May-2003
The claimant sought damages from the defendant for having failed to diagnose his dysexia, resulting in educational failure. The respondent argued a reasonable peson would have sought help earlier. The council appealed a refusal to strike out of the . .
Cited – Adams v Bracknell Forest Borough Council HL 17-Jun-2004
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 . .
Cited – Zurich Insurance Plc UK Branch v International Energy Group Ltd SC 20-May-2015
A claim had been made for mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos, but the claim arose in Guernsey. Acknowledging the acute difficultis particular to the evidence in such cases, the House of Lords, in Fairchild. had introduced the Special Rule . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Limitation, Personal Injury
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177396