Site icon swarb.co.uk

Pritam Kaur v S Russell and Sons Ltd: QBD 1 Jun 1972

The plaintiff sought damages following the death of her husband when working for the defendants. He had died on 5 September 1967 but the writ was not issued until Monday 7 September 1970. The applicable limitation period was 3 years, which the defendants relied upon. The plaintiff argued that since the writ could not be issued when the court office was closed, it was permissible to issue on the next day upon which the court was open.
Held: Willis J said: ‘In the absence of direct authority that the plaintiff under the statute of limitations should not be treated in a similar way to the tenant in Hodgson’s case, that the principles of law applicable to him are those set out in the judgment of Russell LJ in that in the absence of any days of grace or extenuating rule this action is barred.’

Judges:

Willis J

Citations:

[1972] 1 All ER 306, [1973] 1 QB 336, [1973] 2 WLR 147

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHodgson v Armstrong CA 1967
Sellers LJ considered the application of court rules requiring notices to be given within a certain number of days: ‘Does the court need in each statute requiring notices to be given to a court – of which there are so many – an express stipulation . .
CitedRadcliffe v Bartholomew 1892
The day on which an accident happened should be excluded from calculation for limitation purposes. . .
CitedMarren v Dawson Bentley and Co Ltd 1961
Compensation was sought for injuries received in the course of employment.
Held: The limitation period was to be calculated to have started on the day after the occurrence which founded the claim, the day itself being excluded from the . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromPritam Kaur v S Russell and Sons Ltd CA 2-Jun-1972
The plaintiff sought damages following the death of her husband when working for the defendant. The limitation period expired on Saturday 5 September 1970. The writ was issued on the Monday following.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The writ was . .
CitedGwynedd County Council v Grunshaw CA 22-Jul-1999
The plaintiff lived in Lincolnshire, but owned a house in Gwynnedd. She sought to serve a notice in her local County Court, appealing from an order for its demolition, but the manager of that Court refused to accept it saying that it should have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.231056

Exit mobile version