The defendant appealed against the disapplication of section 11 of the 1980 Act under section 33.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The defendant had not contributed significantly to the delay: ‘the defendant received claims quite different in magnitude from anything notified to them before, almost seven years to the day after the accident, and where there is only a period of 17 months for which there is any kind of excuse. They were clearly forensically disadvantaged by a substantial period of delay by the claimants for which there is no excuse.’ The claimant had an action in negligence against his solicitors.
Waller LJ VP, Rimer LJ, Sir Paul Kennedy
 EWCA Civ 1257,  CP Rep 14,  PIQR P5
Limitation Act 1980 11 33
England and Wales
Cited – Walkley v Precision Forgings Ltd HL 1979
The plaintiff tried to bring a second action in respect of an industrial injury claim outside the limitation period so as to overcome the likelihood that his first action, although timeous, would be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Held: He . .
Cited – Thompson v Brown Construction (Ebbw Vale) Ltd HL 1981
The plaintiff’s solicitors, out of negligence, failed to issue a writ until one month after the limitation period had expired. The application to extend the period was rejected at first instance since he had an unanswerable claim against his . .
Cited – Donovan v Gwentoys Ltd HL 1990
The plaintiff, then a 16 year old girl slipped and fell whilst employed at the defendant’s factory. The limitation period expired on her 21st birthday. She commenced proceedings five and a half months after that date. The judge extended time under . .
Cited – A B and others v Liverpool City Council; Nugent Care Society (Formerly Catholic Social Services [Liverpool]) and Trustees of National Children’s Home and Orphanage Registered CA 15-Jun-1998
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 . .
Cited – Cain v Francis CA 18-Dec-2008
The court was asked under what circumstances it should exercise its discretion to extend the limitation period under section 33.
Held: Lady Justice Smith said: ‘It appears to me that there is now a long line of authority to support the . .
Cited – Khairule v North West Strategic Health Authority QBD 4-Jul-2008
Cox J considered the circumstances required to justify the extension of time for limitation: ‘In my view the crucial question in cases such as these, when considering the effects of the passage of time generally and the Section 33 discretion, is . .
Cited – A v Hoare HL 30-Jan-2008
Each of six claimants sought to pursue claims for damages for sexual assaults which would otherwise be time barred under the 1980 Act after six years. They sought to have the House depart from Stubbings and allow a discretion to the court to extend . .
Cited – Dudarec v Andrews and others CA 22-Mar-2006
In a claim for negligence against his former solicitors, the claimant sought damages for the loss of a chance of success in a personal injuries action struck out for want of prosecution seven years earlier.
Held: If the evidence were the same . .
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 – AB and Others v Nugent Care Society CA 29-Jul-2009
‘These appeals raise questions as to the correct approach to the application of section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 in the light of the decision of the House of Lords in A v Hoare  UKHL 6,  1 AC 844. Each appeal arises out of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.381295