LIMITATION: THE EXPIRY OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD AND THE USE OF SECTION 33 IN AN EXTREMELY SENSITIVE CASE
I have to admit I have hesitated before writing about the judgment of Mrs Justice Yip in Young v Downey [2019] EWHC 3508 (QB), it is an extremely sensitive case that has already been widely reported. However that part of…
THE BACK TO BASICS SERIES: A RUNNING ACCOUNT: READ THEM ALL HERE
The “Back to Basics” series, as the title suggests, deals with some of the basic elements of civil procedure. It covers everything from applications and bundles to the taking of witness statements. The titles are often prompted by elements…
AMENDMENT OF CLAIM TO JOIN A NEW PARTY WHEN THERE IS AN ISSUE OVER LIMITATION: APPEAL AGAINST JOINDER ALLOWED
In Trainer v Cramer Pelmont (a firm) [2019] EWHC 2501 (QB) Mr Justice Walker examines the provisions of s14A of the Limitation Act in considerable detail. This is one of those judgments that is likely to be authoritative for years…
AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS IN LITIGATION 6: ACCIDENTS ABROAD ARE SUBJECT TO DIFFERENT LIMITATION PERIODS
In the sixth in this series we look at accidents abroad. In most cases the limitation period of the country where the accident occurred is the limitation period that applies. A lack of knowledge of this basic point, and of…
FALL DOWN AIRCRAFT STEPS WAS AN “ACCIDENT”: HIGH COURT DECISION
Several posts last week dealt with claims relating to aircraft and the limitation period. The Montreal Convention was considered in Labbadia v Alitalia (Societa Aerea Italiana SPA) [2019] EWHC 2103 (QB). (One essential point to take home is that this…
AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS IN LITIGATION 5: BE WARY OF EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS ON WATER: BOATS AND SHIPS (& GANGWAYS)
In the fifth in this updated series we are looking at the different time periods that apply when an accident occurs on, or even near, water. The aim, as ever, is to flag these issues up so that (as…
AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS IN LITIGATION 4: AVIATION, PLANES, AIRPORTS AND BALLOONS: VICIOUS RULES APPLY
This is the fourth in the series. The purpose of this post is to make you feel really uncomfortable when you are involved with a case that involves aviation and personal injury, in any way shape or form. Including when…
AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS IN LITIGATION 3: 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. Myth 1: In a breach of contract case the limitation period is six years. This is clearly a prevalent…
AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS IN LITIGATION 2: HOW DO YOU MISS THE THREE YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD?
This series looks at avoiding negligence claims in litigation, personal injury litigation in particular. The easiest (and most common) method of a negligence claim is missing the limitation period. How does anyone miss a three year limitation period? The basic…
SHOULD THE COURT ORDER A SPLIT TRIAL ON LIMITATION? THE FUTILITY OF CITING DECIDED CASES: “SCRIPTURE FROM WHICH THE DEVIL MAY FREELY QUOTE”
In Hutson v Tata Steel UK Ltd [2019] EWHC 1608 (QB) Mr Justice Turner refused the defendant’s application for a split trial on limitation in a group action. The judgment makes it clear that there is no “burden” on any…
LIMITATION: SECTION 33 APPLICATION SUCCESSFUL – 38 YEARS AFTER THE EVENT COMPLAINED OF
In FZO v Adams & Anor [2018] EWHC 3584 (QB) Mrs Justice Cutts exercised the Section 33 discretion in a case brought 25 – 30 years after the expiry of the applicable limitation period and where the events happened 38…
AN UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT TO APPEAL JUDGE’S EXERCISE OF DISCRETION UNDER S.33 OF THE LIMITATION ACT 1980 IN FAVOUR OF THE CLAIMANT
In HMG3 Ltd & Anor v Dunn [2019] EWHC 882 (QB) Mrs Justice Yip upheld the findings of a Circuit Judge who exercised their discretion under Section 33 in favour of a claimant. THE CASE The claim is brought by…
AMENDMENT, FOOTBALL AND THE ALLEGEDLY NEGLIGENT SOLICITOR: SIX KEY POINTS (WITH THE LAST ONE BEING THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL)
There are many reasons litigators should read the judgment of Mrs Justice O’Farrell in Jenkins v JCP Solicitors Ltd [2019] EWHC 852 (QB). 1. It provides yet another example of a claimant suing the wrong entity The firm of solicitors…
PERMISSION TO AMEND PLEADINGS TO PLEAD NEW CASE AFTER EXPIRY OF LIMITATION PERIOD REFUSED: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION: STICK TO THE PLEADINGS
In Samba Financial Group v Byers & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 416 the Court of Appeal overturned an order allowing the claimant permission to amend its case. In essence the Court of Appeal decided that where a court was considering an…
AGREEING EXTENSIONS OF TIME: ADVICE FROM M’ LEARNED FRIEND: “DON’T PANIC” AND BE TOTALLY CLEAR IN WHAT YOU ARE AGREEING
In his post yesterday Agreeing An Extension to the Limitation Period Nigel Poole QC dealt with some of the issues arising from the judgment in Cowan v Foreman and ors [2019] EWHC 349 (Fam) where Mostyn J suggested it was not possible for the…
LIMITATION AND INHERITANCE ACT CLAIMS: SOMETHING TO WATCH CAREFULLY: AGREEING “LIMITATION AMNESTY” MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE
NB – THESE COMMENTS ON THE POWER TO AGREE AN AMNESTY WERE DOUBTED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL SEE THE POST HERE In Cowan v Foreman & Ors [2019] EWHC 349 (Fam) Mr Justice Mostyn set out some importance principles in…
CIVIL PROCEDURE: BACK TO BASICS 25: FATAL ACCIDENT ACT LIMITATION PERIODS AND CHILDREN
The law of limitation for Fatal Accidents Act claims for children is often misunderstood. Here we look at the limitation period in relation to fatal accident claims and children. There are two issues: the limitation period when any of…
“DENTON” PRINCIPLES DO NOT APPLY TO SECTION 33 APPLICATIONS: HIGH COURT REJECTS DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THAT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS PRINCIPLES SHOULD BE APPLIED TO LIMITATION ACT
In Ellis v Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust & Ors [2018] EWHC 3505 (Ch) HHJ McKenna (sitting in the High Court) roundly rejected an argument that the court should apply “Denton” type guidance to a claimant’s application to disapply the…
YOU’RE FIRED: A LITIGATOR ON THE APPRENTICE 7: PLANE COMMONSENSE WAS JUST MISSING: ONE LAWYER GONE, THE OTHER INVISIBLE
This week one of our lawyers on the Apprentice got fired. Law Graduate Kurran did not make the grade, he got to take the taxi ride of shame. That leaves solicitor Sarah Ann as the only lawyer remaining. Kurran’s team…
WITNESS STATEMENTS AND WITNESS EVIDENCE: DO YOU KNOW ABOUT CPR 32.5(4): “LATE EVIDENCE” SHOULD BE HARD TO ADDUCE
In the judgment today in The Catholic Child Welfare Society (Diocese of Middlesbrough) & Ors v CD [2018] EWCA Civ 2342 the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against a claimant being successful in a Section 33 application. There is an…
