In 1987, and before the claim was issued in 1992 the claimant had issued a claim which had never been served. She sought to extend the limitation period arguing that she had not acquired the requisite knowledge until later,
Held: She had had the requisite knowledge in 1985.
Waite LJ observed that her issue of the claim in 1987 did not necessarily betoken that she had knowledge under section 14(1), saying also: ‘The court should look to the essence of the matter and enquire how far the plaintiff had knowledge in broad terms of the facts on which it is based’ and ‘In a discretionary jurisdiction where the court is required to have regard to ‘all the circumstances of the case’ it would clearly be inappropriate to look for hard and fast rules, but counsel were agreed in this court that the section must be read as incorporating one underlying principle. In the process of assessing equity and balancing prejudice which the section enjoins, a party’s action or inaction cannot be divorced from the acts or omissions of his legal representative. The principle in that respect is analogous to that applying in cases of striking out for want of prosecution.’
Judges:
Waite LJ
Citations:
[1995] 6 Med LR 32, [1995] PIQR 361
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Farraj and Another v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust and Another QBD 26-May-2006
The claimants sought damages after the birth of their child with a severe hereditary disease which they said the defendant hospital had failed to diagnose after testing for that disease. The hospital sought a contribution from the company CSL who . .
Doubted – Das v Ganju CA 31-Mar-1999
Where a personal injury action had been delayed for five years by bad advice from solicitors and counsel, the court’s discretion should be exercised to allow the plaintiff to proceed with her claim, not herself being responsible for the delay.
Cited – Ministry 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.
Limitation, Professional Negligence
Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.242344