The claimant was seriously ill and claimed that this arose from exposure to asbestos fibres working for the defendant many years before. He now sought an extension of time to make the claim.
Held: The court upheld the limitation defences of both defendants and dismissed the action:
i) The claimant did not have actual knowledge of the possible link between his lung cancer and his previous exposure to asbestos until July 2009 when he saw the advertisement. Therefore he commenced proceedings within the requisite three year period after the date of actual knowledge.
ii) The claimant had constructive knowledge under LA section 14 (3) of the possible link in mid-2003. This is because, as a reasonable man, he should by then have asked Dr Prejbisz about the possible causes of his cancer. If the claimant had done so, Dr Prejbisz would have mentioned asbestos exposure as a possible cause.
iii) Therefore under LA section 11 the limitation period expired in mid-2006. The claimant commenced his actions six years after expiry of the limitation period.
iv) Upon application of the criteria set out in LA section 33, it did not appear equitable to disapply the provisions of section 11. Therefore the defendants’ limitation defences succeeded.
Judges:
Nicol J
Citations:
[2013] EWHC 1117 (QB)
Links:
Statutes:
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury, Limitation
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491918