Site icon swarb.co.uk

Nash v Eli Lilly and Co: QBD 1991

The court discussed the relevance of knowledge obtainable by the plaintiff’s solicitor for limitation purposes.
Held: Hidden J said ‘My conclusion is therefore that there is no binding authority on whether facts ascertainable by a plaintiff with the help of legal advice come within or without the terms of S14(3)(b). For my part I doubt whether in most ordinary circumstances they do’.

Judges:

Hidden J

Citations:

[1991] 2 Med LR 182

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1989 14(3)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedPowell v National Coal Board CA 28-May-1986
Limitation operates as a defence, and therefore it is for he who sets it up to establish it, and prove that the claim was time barred. Once the initial limitation period had elapsed, it was for the plaintiff to assert that the date of knowledge . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromNash v Eli Lilly and Co CA 1993
The court considered whether a solicitor acting for a potential plaintiff was considered to be an expert for the purposes of the section.
Held: Purchas LJ said: ‘Of course as advice from a solicitor as to the legal consequences of the act or . .
CitedHenderson v Temple Pier Company Limited CA 23-Apr-1998
The plaintiff suffered injury walking a gangway onto a moored ship. Her solicitors failed to identify the owner of the ship, misspelling the name and failing to search in the General Register of Shipping and Seamen. The eventual claim was made . .
CitedAB and Others v Ministry of Defence QBD 5-Jun-2009
Former members of the armed forces and others claimed damages for personal injuries, claiming that they had been obliged to expose themselves to the effects of atomic bomb explosions in the 1950s. The defendant argued that the claims were now out of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Negligence

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.186431

Exit mobile version