Smith v Central Asbestos Co Ltd; Central Asbestos Co Ltd v Dodd: HL 1973

The House considered at what point an injured person was to be deemed to have become aware of his injury so as to start the limitation period.
Held: A majority rejected the proposition that knowledge of ‘material facts’ for section 1(3) purposes included knowledge that the defendant’s conduct entitled the plaintiff to a legal remedy.
Lord Reid said: ‘I agree with the view expressed in the Court of Appeal that this test is subjective. We are not concerned with ‘the reasonable man’. Less is expected of a stupid or uneducated man than of a man of intelligence and wide experience.’ As to the 1963 Act, it had ‘a strong claim to the distinction of being the worst drafted Act on the statute book’. And ‘So probably the key lies in the use of the word ‘attributable.’ That means capable of being attributed. ‘Attribute’ has a number of cognate meanings; you can attribute a quality to a person or thing, you can attribute a product to a source or author, or you can attribute an effect to a cause. The essential element is connection of some kind.’

Judges:

Lord Reid

Citations:

[1973] AC 518, [1972] 2 All ER 1135, [1972] 3 WLR 333, 13 KIR 75, [1972] 2 Lloyds Rep 413

Statutes:

Limtation Act 1963 7(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromSmith v Central Asbestos Co Ltd CA 1971
Edmund-Davies LJ said of a report prepared by a committee of which had been chairman into ‘whether any alteration is desirable in the law relating to the limitation of actions in cases of personal injury where the injury or disease giving rise to . .

Cited by:

No longer good lawAdams v Bracknell Forest Borough Council HL 17-Jun-2004
A attended the defendant’s schools between 1977 and 1988. He had always experienced difficulties with reading and writing and as an adult found those difficulties to be an impediment in his employment. He believed them to be the cause of the . .
CitedHaward and others v Fawcetts HL 1-Mar-2006
The claimant sought damages from his accountants, claiming negligence. The accountants pleaded limitation. They had advised him in connection with an investment in a company which investment went wrong.
Held: It was argued that the limitation . .
CitedMinistry of Defence v AB and Others SC 14-Mar-2012
The respondent Ministry had, in 1958, conducted experimental atmospheric explosions of atomic weapons. The claimants had been obliged as servicemen to observe the explosions, and appealed against dismissal of their claims for radiation sickness . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.200436