The court was asked as to the extent and nature of knowledge required to start time running against a plaintiff in a negligence case.
Purchas LJ said: ‘It is to be noted that a firm belief held by the plaintiff that his injury was attributable to act or omission of the defendant, but in respect of which he thought it necessary to obtain reassurance or confirmation from experts, medical or legal or others, would not be regarded as knowledge until the result of his inquiries was known to him or, if he delayed in obtaining that confirmation, until the time at which it was reasonable for him to have got it . . ‘ and ‘Of course, as advice from a solicitor as to the legal consequences of the act or omission is not relevant, his contribution can only consist of factual information. Moreover, where constructive knowledge is under consideration through the channel of a solicitor, this can only be relevant where it is established that the plaintiff ought reasonably to have consulted at all. Thus it is for the defendant to establish not only that a solicitor whom the plaintiff might consult would have the necessary knowledge but also that it was reasonable to expect the plaintiff to consult him.’
 4 All ER 395,  1 WLR 782
Limitation Act 1980 14(3)
England and Wales
Cited – Graham v Entec Europe Ltd (T/A Exploration Associates) CA 6-Aug-2003
The claimant’s bungalow suffered subsidence. Repair works were undertaken as advised by the defendants, but unsuccessfully. The claimant’s insurers instructed experts negotiators to investigate with a view to a claim. The defendants now claimed the . .
Cited – Smith v Leicestershire Health Authority CA 29-Jan-1998
The plaintiff appealed a finding that she had sufficient knowledge of her possible claim for medical negligence against the defendants, and that she was out of time. She had known of her condition, but said she had no sufficient reason to see that . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2021; Ref: scu.186304