Kaufmann Brothers v Liverpool Corporation: KBD 1916

It was argued that a claim under the 1886 Act was a claim for ‘alleged neglect or default’ within the meaning of the 1893 Act, so that the claim was time-barred under that Act.
Held: The argument failed. The 1893 Act did not apply.
Lush J said: ‘In this case the police authority failed to fix the compensation to the satisfaction of the plaintiffs and they brought this action. It was an action to recover compensation under the statute; it was not brought to recover damages for any default on the part of the police authority; it was simply an action to recover such an amount as the county court judge might think right to allow as compensation for the damage done to the plaintiffs’ property’.


Lush J, Rowlatt J


[1916] 1 KB 860


Public Authorities Protection Act 1893, Riot (Damages) Act 1886

Cited by:

CitedBedfordshire Police Authority v Constable and others ComC 20-Jun-2008
The authority insured its primary liability for compensation under the 1886 Act through the claimants and the excess of liability through re-insurers. The parties sought clarification from the court of the respective liabilities of the insurance . .
CitedYarl’s Wood Immigration Ltd and Others v Bedfordshire Police Authority CA 23-Oct-2009
The claimant sought to recover the costs of damage to their centre following a riot, saying that under the 1886 Act, they were liable. It appealed against a ruling that they were unable to claim as a public authority, saying that the 1886 Act was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Limitation

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.270266