The test of whether a plaintiff had sufficient knowledge to justify the start of time running against her takes into account her subjective characteristics but then applies an outsider’s view of what she should have thought.
Geoffrey Lane LJ said in relation to section 2A(7): ‘[I]t is clear that the test is partly a subjective test, namely: ‘would this plaintiff have considered the injury sufficiently serious?’ and partly an objective test, namely: ‘would he have been reasonable if he did not regard it as sufficiently serious?’ It seems to me that the subsection is directed at the nature of the injury as known to the plaintiff at that time. Taking that plaintiff, with that plaintiff’s intelligence, would he have been reasonable in considering the injury not sufficiently serious to justify instituting proceedings for damages? I do not consider that it is permissible under this section to look into such problems as whether it would have been politic in the circumstances for the plaintiff to sue his employers at that time for fear of losing his job. Such considerations arise, if at all, under the new section 2D.’
Geoffrey Lane LJ, Megaw LJ
[1977] 1 WLR 1073, [1977] 2 All ER 756
Limitation Act 1939 2A 2B 2C 2D
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – KR and others v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd and Another CA 10-Jun-2003
The court considered an extension of the time for claiming damages for personal injuries after the claimants said they had been sexually abused as children in the care of the defendants.
Held: The test to be applied under section 14(2) was . .
Not Followed – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Limitation
Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.186441