AN APPLICATION THAT WAS “OPPORTUNISTIC AND WITHOUT MERIT”: NON-PAYMENT OF THE COURT FEE WITHIN EXISTING PROCEEDINGS DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO A LIMITATION DEFENCE: JARNDYCE -v- JARNDYCE CONSIDERED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
The issue of non-payment, or under-payment, of court fees was considered by the Court of Appeal in the judgment today in Butters & Anor v Hayes [2021] EWCA Civ 252. THE CASE During the course of an action the court…
WEBINAR ON AVOIDING PROBLEMS IN LIMITATION: 4th FEBRUARY 2021
On the 4th February I am giving a webinar “Limitation Avoiding Problems and Pitfalls”. THE WEBINAR This webinar looks at the major problem areas in limitation for personal injury litigants. It identifies, and helps litigators avoid, all those difficult areas…
CLAIMANTS SUED THE WRONG (NON-EXISTENT) DEFENDANT – AND THE LIMITATION PERIOD HAD EXPIRED: DON’T START BREAKING THE CROCKERY JUST YET
In The 52 Occupiers of the Ceramic Works v Bowmer & Kirkland Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 17 (TCC) District Judge Baldwin considered an application to substitute a defendant after the primary limitation period had expired. The judge, if anything,…
UNSUCCESSFUL APPEAL AGAINST JUDGE’S DISCRETION TO EXERCISE S.33 DISCRETION IN FAVOUR OF A CLAIMANT: DECISION TODAY
In Azam v University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust [2020] EWHC 3384 (QB) Mr Justice Saini dismissed a defendant’s appeal when a trial judge had allowed the claimant’s application under Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980. This judgment highlights…
THE LIMITATION PERIOD, PERSONAL INJURY AND THE RESTORATION OF A COMPANY: A HIGH COURT DECISION
In Holmes v S & B Concrete Ltd [2020] EWHC 2277 (QB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer considered the issues surrounding the claimant’s argument that the limitation period in a personal injury action was suspended when a company was wound up….
APPLYING TO SUBSTITUTE A PARTY AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD: THE STATUTE AND THE RULES CONSIDERED
The rules relating to substituting a defendant after expiry of the limitation period are always a little intimidating. Particularly when trying to persuade a court to apply them. They were considered in detail in the judgment of Master Shuman in…
CLAIM AGAINST SOLICITORS WAS STATUTE BARRED: THAT SIX YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD MAY NOT ALWAYS START WHEN YOU THINK
It is surprising how many of the reported cases relating to mis-service of the claim form are professional negligence cases. It appears to be a common practice to run a case up to the end of the limitation period and,…
APPEAL JUDGE OVERTURNS REFUSAL TO EXERCISE SECTION 33 DISCRETION: DELAY AND PREJUDICE HIGHLY RELEVANT FACTORS
In Gregory v H J Haynes Ltd [2020] EWHC 911 (Ch) Mr Justice Mann overturned a judge’s decision not to exercise their discretion under Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980. The claimant had been guilty of culpable delay but…
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 33 SUCCEEDS MORE THAN 24 YEARS AFTER EXPIRY OF LIMITATION PERIOD
In BXB v Watch Tower And Bible Tract Society of Pennsylvannia & Anor [2020] EWHC 156 (QB) Mr Justice Chamberlain allowed the claimant’s application under Section 33 of the Limitation Act in a case that was issued more than 24…
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…
