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 injuries some of which the plaintiff knows to be attributable to the act or omission of the defendant which is alleged to constitute negligence, but the main part of which is not to the plaintiff’s knowledge attributable in whole or in part to the act or omission of the defendant which is alleged to constitute negligence, does the three year period commence when the plaintiff has knowledge that the lesser part of the injury is attributable, or does the three year period start only when the plaintiff has knowledge that the greater part of the injury is attributable? The discovery of a cause of action was at the point where a plaintiff discovered that a lesser part of her injuries were attributable to the cause, not later when the majority was attributed, and limitation ran accordingly.
Lord Justice Roch, And Mrs Justice Hale
Times 12-Jan-1999, Gazette 27-Jan-1999, [1998] EWCA Civ 1917
Limitation Act 1980 11(4)
England and Wales
CitedSpargo v North Essex District Health Authority CA 13-Mar-1997
The test of ‘When a plaintiff became aware of the cause of an injury’ is a subjective test of what passed through plaintiff’s mind. ‘(1) the knowledge required to satisfy s14(1)(b) is a broad knowledge of the essence of the causally relevant act or . .
CitedDobbie v Medway Health Authority CA 11-May-1994
The plaintiff had a lump on her breast. The surgeon, without first subjecting the lump to a microscopic examination in order to determine whether it was cancerous or benign, removed the breast. This was in 1973. The lump was subsequently found to be . .
CitedLevy v Spyers 1856
‘It is negligence where there are two ways of doing a thing, and one is clearly right, and the other is doubtful, to do it in the doubtful way’ . .
CitedDonovan 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 . .
CitedBentley v Bristol and Western Hospital Authority 1991
. .
CitedHartley v Birmingham City District Council CA 1992
The writ was issued one day late; there had been early notification of the claim; and the defendant’s ability to defend the case was unaffected. The plaintiff asked the court to exercide its discretion to allow the claim t proceed.
Held: The . .
CitedMcCafferty v Metropolitan Police Receiver CA 1977
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 outsiders’ view of what she should have thought.
Geoffrey Lane LJ . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 May 2021; Ref: scu.145396