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
In Cowan v Foreman & Ors [2019] EWHC 349 (Fam) Mr Justice Mostyn set out some importance principles in relation to applications brought outside the time period set out in the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. There is…
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…
LIMITATION PERIODS AT SEA: A CAUTIONARY TALE FROM THE SUPREME COURT: A WAKE UP CALL FOR PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATORS -YOU MUST KNOW ABOUT DIFFERING LIMITATION PERIODS
This blog has, on many occasions, warned about the dangers posed by “different” limitation periods. This danger can be seen in the decision of the Supreme Court today in Warner v Scapa Flow Charters (Scotland) [2018] UKSC 52. I must emphasise…
APPEALING A SECTION 33 DECISION – IS HARD TO DO: KIMATHI IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
In refusing permission to appeal in Kimathi & Ors v Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2018] EWCA Civ 2213 the Court of Appeal emphasised the difficulty involved in appealing a discretionary decision made under Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980. “The…
AVOIDING PROBLEMS WITH LIMITATION AND THE EFFECTIVE USE SECTION 33 (WEBINAR): 7th NOVEMBER 2018
On the 7th November 2018 I am presenting a webinar for APIL on issues in relation to limitation in personal injury case. It looks at the most common causes of difficulty with limitation periods, avoiding problems with limitation and then…
LIMITATION: COURT DOES NOT EXERCISE SECTION 33 IN CASE CONCERNING ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE: A CAUSE OF ACTION CANNOT BE PUT ON THE SHELF
This is the second post of the day on Section 33. In Murray v Devenish & Ors (Sons of the Sacred Heart of Jesus) [2018] EWHC 1895 (QB) the claimant was not successful. Mr Justice Nicol held that the claimant’s delay…
LIMITATION: SECTION 33 IN A FATAL DISEASE CASE: CASE ALLOWED TO PROCEED AFTER 25 YEAR DELAY
In Pearce & Ors v The Secretary of State for Business, Energy And Industrial Strategy & Ors [2018] EWHC 2009 (QB) Mr Justice Turner considered the principles relating to Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 and granted an application where…
THE KIMATHI DECISION 5: REVIEW OF SECTION 33 PRINCIPLES: WHY LIMITATION WASN’T HEARD FIRST
This is the fifth in the series that looks at the decision of Mr Justice Stewart in Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign And Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 2066 (QB). The judgment contains a useful review and survey of Section 33 and…
CIVIL PROCEDURE: BACK TO BASICS 11: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE “DATE OF ISSUE FOR LIMITATION” PURPOSES AND THE “DATE OF ISSUE” FOR THE PURPOSES OF SERVICE
There were a number of search terms which led people to this blog today that related to the date of service and date of issue. The confusion is, perhaps, easy to understand The relevant date for limitation purposes is the date…
THE KIMATHI DECISION 1: PLEADINGS ARE NOT EVIDENCE
The judgment in Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign And Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 2066 (QB) came after a trial that commenced in May 2016 and lasted until June 2018. It contained a whole range of issues in relation to procedure…
SETTING JUDGMENT ASIDE: LIMITATION, SECTION 33 AND DENTON: CARDS ON THE TABLE PLEASE – THIS IS THE CPR
In TPE v Franks [2018] EWHC 1765 (QB) Mr Justice Julian Knowles set aside a default judgment. The case contains some important observations as to how the courts should consider an application to set aside a default judgment – considering…