SECTION 33 APPLICATION IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE: THE SINS OF THE SOLICITORS WERE NOT VISITED UPON THE CLAIMANT: ACTION ALLOWED TO PROCEED WHEN IT WAS 5 1/2 YEARS OUT OF TIME
We looked at the judgment in Shaw v Maguire (Re Preliminary Issues) [2023] EWHC 2155 (KB) in an earlier post where Master Cook held that the court had a discretion under Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 in a fatal…
FATAL ACCIDENTS AND LIMITATION: THERE IS NO BAR TO SECTION 33 BEING USED IF THE LIMITATION PERIOD EXPIRED PRIOR TO DECEASED PERSON’S DEATH
In Shaw v Maguire (Re Preliminary Issues) [2023] EWHC 2155 (KB) Master Cook considered an issue relating to limitation, Section 33 and fatal accident claims. Can a claimant rely on Section 33 in circumstances where the limitation period had expired…
AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS IN PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION: A RECAP OF THE FIRST SERIES
As part of the scroll through the “back catalogue” on this blog we are looking at the series from 2013 on avoiding negligence. Remember that this series was written 10 years ago. There may have been some changes since then,…
CLAIMANT’S CONVENTION CLAIM DISMISSED FOLLOWING ATTEMPT TO AMEND AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD
I am grateful to Barrister Katherine Howells for sending me a copy of the judgment in Hallett -v- TUI Airways Limited, a copy of which is available here Approved Judgment Hallett v TUI Airways Limited. The case deals with the…
SECTION 33 APPLICATION ALLOWED IN ACTION ISSUED 4 YEARS AFTER LIMITATION EXPIRED
In Tyers v Aegis Defence Services (BVI) Ltd & Ors [2023] EWHC 896 (KB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer allowed an application under Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 in a case where the proceedings were issued 7 years after…
FAILURE TO SERVE A DEFENDANT PROPERLY AND ISSUING OUT OF TIME: HIGH COURT DECISION
In Muhammad v Daily The News International & Ors (Rev1) [2023] EWHC 674 (KB) Master Cook determined a number of procedural issues. Here we look at two: (1) the failure to serve on a defendant properly; (2) the question of…
AVOIDING LIMITATION PROBLEMS IN PERSONAL INJURY: WEBINAR 29th SEPTEMBER 2022
On the 29th September 2022 I am presenting a webinar “Avoiding Limitation Problems”. This deals with the major issues relating to limitation in personal injury actions. Booking details are available here. THE CONTENTS OF THE WEBINAR Basic limitation periods,…
THE 10 YEAR LONGSTOP PERIOD IN PRODUCT LIABILITY CLAIMS: A POINT TO WATCH
There is one very tricky area of limitation law that I wanted to return to following the judgment in Coote -v- Ullstein [2022] EWHC 606 (QB). The case was looked at in detail here. However I want to concentrate on the…
WEBINARS ON KEEPING YOUR COOL: UNDERSETTLEMENT, PROCEDURAL PITFALLS AND LIMITATION PROBLEMS: AVOIDING MATTERS HEATING UP WHEN THE HEATWAVE IS OVER
In September I am presenting a number of webinars with the theme of “avoiding problems”. These are avoiding undersettlement: avoiding procedural pitfalls and avoiding problems with limitation. “AVOIDING UNDERSETTLEMENT: A GUIDE FOR PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS” 19th September 2022 …
COURT EXTENDS TIME TO BRING HUMAN RIGHTS ACT CLAIM: MINOR CLAIMANTS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR
In CJ & Ors Wiltshire Police [2022] EWHC 1661 (QB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer extended the limitation period in a claim under the Human Rights Act. Although the claimants were ultimately unsuccessful there are important observations in relation to the…
A CLAIMANT WHO OBTAINS AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 33 IS “SUCCESSFUL”: COSTS, CONDUCT AND INTERIM PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS CONSIDERED
In Aderounmu v Colvin (Costs) [2022] EWHC 637 (QB) Master David Cook made an order for costs in favour of a claimant who had succeeded on a preliminary issue. A discount was made because certain aspects of the case had…
COURT REFUSES TO EXTEND TIME IN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT CLAIM: THERE IS NO RIGHT TO LITIGATE – THAT IS WHAT LIMITATION IS
In Rafiq v Thurrock Borough Council [2022] EWHC 584 (QB) Mrs Justice Collins Rice refused a claimant’s for an extension of time to a claimant bringing a claim under the Human Rights Act. The judgment is a reminder that there…
10 MYTHS ABOUT LIMITATION THAT EVERY PERSONAL INJURY LAWYER SHOULD KNOW
Here we look at ten “myths” (that is misconceptions) about limitation that can lead to personal injury litigators getting into difficulties. This is not the first time these issues have been examined on these blog. However these continue to be…
LIMITATION, SEXUAL ABUSE AND THE SECTION 33 DISCRETION: A FAIR TRIAL WAS NOT POSSIBLE AND CLAIMANTS’ ACTION DISMISSED
The previous post looked at the decision in TVZ & Ors v Manchester City Football Club [2022] EWHC 7 (QB) in relation to the issue of vicarious liability. However it is important to note that the claimants did not succeed in…
AVOIDING PROBLEMS WITH LIMITATION AND MAKING A SECTION 33 APPLICATION: WEBINAR 13th JANUARY 2022
On the 13th January 2022 I am giving a webinar on Avoiding Problems with Limitation and making a Section 33 application. Booking details are available here. THE WEBINAR The webinar looks at recent cases about limitation in personal injury…
“A SOLICITOR, NO MATTER HOW EXPERIENCED OR INEXPERIENCED, MUST BE TAKEN TO KNOW THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES”
That quotation, taken from the judgment of HHJ Bird in Holterman v Electrium (2020) EWHC 3915 ( TCC) was chosen by Professor Dominic Regan as his “thought of the year” in a recent tweet. Since there are 3208 pages in…
CLAIMANT WAS VICTIM OF FRAUD BUT ITS ACTION IS STATUTE BARRED: SECTION 32 (1) OF THE LIMITATION ACT 1980 CONSIDERED
In European Real Estate Debt Fund (Cayman) Ltd v Treon & Ors [2021] EWHC 2866 (Ch) Mr Justice Miles made many findings adverse to the defendants. However the claim failed because it was statute barred. The judgment considers the issue…
LITIGATION, DELAY AND THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES: IT WOULD BE “UNCONSCIONABLE FOR THE COURT TO GRANT THE APPLICANT ANY RELIEF”
The judgment of ICC Judge Barber in CSB 123 Ltd, Re [2021] EWHC 2506 (Ch)is interesting for a large number of reasons. Not least the total failure of the applicant to establish major (if not all) parts of its case,…
SECTION 33 CONSIDERED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: TRIAL JUDGE WAS CORRECT TO EXERCISE THEIR DISCRETION
In Blackpool Football Club Ltd v DSN [2021] EWCA Civ 1352 the Court of Appeal considered, and upheld, a decision on Section 33 where the discretion was exercised in favour of the claimant. This was in the context, however, of…
LIMITATION, THE DATE OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE SECTION 33 DISCRETION: THE SINS OF THE LAWYER CANNOT NECESSARILY BE PASSED ONTO THE CLIENT
The judgment of Richard Hermer QC, sitting as a High Court Judge, in Wilkins v University Hospital North Midlands NHS Trust [2021] EWHC 2164 (QB) deals with several important elements of limitation in the context of clinical negligence. Firstly the…