Click the case name for better results:

Roberts vWinbow (3): CA 4 Dec 1998

The plaintiff was treated for depression by the defendant by prescription of drugs. She sufferred a reaction, but now claimed that the doctor’s slow reaction caused her to suffer lasting injury. The question on appeal was, if a plaintiff suffers injuries some of which the plaintiff knows to be attributable to the act or omission … Continue reading Roberts vWinbow (3): CA 4 Dec 1998

Dobbie v Medway Health Authority: CA 11 May 1994

The plaintiff had a lump on her breast. The surgeon, without first subjecting the lump to a microscopic examination in order to determine whether it was cancerous or benign, removed the breast. This was in 1973. The lump was subsequently found to be benign. The patient knew very soon after the operation that the lump … Continue reading Dobbie v Medway Health Authority: CA 11 May 1994

Mirza v Birmingham Health Authority: QBD 31 Jul 2001

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

Jacqueline Adam v Rasal Ali: CA 21 Feb 2006

The defendant sought damages against the defendant for personal injury from his alleged negligence. Her action was struck out and she recommenced the action. The defendant pleaded that she was out of time. The claimant said that the first action having been struck out, the judge retained his discretion to disapply the limitation period, following … Continue reading Jacqueline Adam v Rasal Ali: CA 21 Feb 2006

Cressey v E Timm and Son Ltd and E Timm and Son Holding Ltd: CA 24 Jun 2005

The claimant sought to counter a defence that his claim was out of time, saying that he had been misinformed as to the name of his employer. Held: A person could not sue simply ‘his employer’. He must find a name, particularly as against a limited company, to begin his action. The claimant had been … Continue reading Cressey v E Timm and Son Ltd and E Timm and Son Holding Ltd: CA 24 Jun 2005

Collins v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and Others: CA 23 May 2014

The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for personal injury which had been rejected on basis that it was out of time. He had contracted cancer in 2002, but had recovered. He later came to attribute this to exposure to asbestos at work in the docks up to 1967. He made his claim in … Continue reading Collins v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and Others: CA 23 May 2014

Ministry of Defence v AB and Others: SC 14 Mar 2012

The respondent Ministry had, in 1958, conducted experimental atmospheric explosions of atomic weapons. The claimants had been obliged as servicemen to observe the explosions, and appealed against dismissal of their claims for radiation sickness under the 1980 Act. They said that they had only acquired the knowledge to found an action in 2007 on the … Continue reading Ministry of Defence v AB and Others: SC 14 Mar 2012

McCoubrey v Ministry of Defence: CA 24 Jan 2007

The defendant appealed a decision allowing a claim to proceed more than ten years after it had been suffered. The claimant’s hearing had been damaged after an officer threw a thunderflash into his trench on an exercise. Held: The defendant’s appeal was allowed. ‘If a claimant can bring himself within section 11(4)(b), then he can … Continue reading McCoubrey v Ministry of Defence: CA 24 Jan 2007

Parsons v Warren and Another: CA 31 Jan 2002

Appeal from a judgment that the claim for damages for industrial disease, commenced by the respondent against the appellants had been brought by the respondent within three years of his date of knowledge for the purposes of section 11(4) and section 14 of the Limitation Act 1980, and that, in any event, he would override … Continue reading Parsons v Warren and Another: CA 31 Jan 2002

Westminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc: HL 31 Oct 1984

The House was asked whether the 1971 Act permitted the relevant authorities, by resort to their development plans, to support the retention of traditional industries or was the ambit of the Act such as to permit only ‘land use’ aims to be pursued? The court considered also the relevance of personal considerations in planning matters. … Continue reading Westminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc: HL 31 Oct 1984