Where a personal injury action had been delayed for five years by bad advice from solicitors and counsel, the court’s discretion should be exercised to allow the plaintiff to proceed with her claim, not herself being responsible for the delay.
Sir Christopher Staughton (referring to Whitfield v Durham) said: ‘If that passage means that as a matter of law anything done by the lawyers must be visited on the client, it cannot in my view be reconciled with other authority. It appears to have been a concession which the court accepted. The other authority is Thomson v Brown  1 WLR 744 and the speech of Lord Diplock at 750 and 752, which I do not set out for fear of lengthening this judgment even further. I would also return to Halford v Brookes where again it is said that it is no reproach to the plaintiff that he has received the wrong legal advice.’
Sir Christopher Staughton, Buxton LJ
Times 04-May-1999, Gazette 12-May-1999,  EWCA Civ 1152,  Lloyd’s Rep Med 198,  PIQR P260
England and Wales
Doubted – Whitfield v North Durham Health Authority CA 1995
In 1987, and before the claim was issued in 1992 the claimant had issued a claim which had never been served. She sought to extend the limitation period arguing that she had not acquired the requisite knowledge until later,
Held: She had had . .
Cited – Horton v Sadler and Another HL 14-Jun-2006
The claimant had been injured in a road traffic accident for which the defendant was responsible in negligence. The defendant was not insured, and so a claim was to be made against the MIB. The plaintiff issued proceedings just before the expiry of . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.146067