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…
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…
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…
UNDERPAYMENT OF COURT FEES IS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: HOWEVER DESPITE THIS AN ACTION WAS ISSUED WITHIN TIME & WOULD NOT BE STRUCK OUT
In the judgment today in Atha & Co Solicitors v Liddle [2018] EWHC 1751 (QB) Mr Justice Turner considered the issue of whether a failure to pay the correct fee on the issue of proceedings meant that a claim was…
FIFTH BIRTHDAY REVIEW 9: COURT FEES, FEE REMISSION AND LIMITATION STANDSTILL AGREEMENTS
This is the penultimate post looking back at key series of the past five years. I am here revisiting two aspects of the law relating to court fees. Firstly the series on mitigating the effect of the (ridiculous) increase in…
FIFTH BIRTHDAY REVIEW 8: MYTHS ABOUT LIMITATION
This was a series in 2017. Looking at common “myths” or misconceptions in relation to limitation issues, particularly in personal injury cases. MYTHUSTING 1 The limitation period for a personal injury action based on breach of contract is…
5th BIRTHDAY REVIEW 3: AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS
This is the third post that looks back at series of posts over the past five years. The series on avoiding negligence claims was written at the end of 2013. The emphasis was on avoiding negligence claims, particularly for personal injury…
“NOTHING SHORT OF A RECOGNISED PSYCHIATRIC INJURY CAN AMOUNT TO A PERSONAL INJURY”: SECTION 33 CANNOT APPLY WHERE THE CLAIMANTS SUFFERED “FEAR”
The judgment of Mr Justice Stewart in Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 1305 (QB) (24 May 2018) considers the question of what is an “injury” for the purpose of Section 33 of the Limitation Act…
WHEN THE LIMITATION ACT IS NOT YOUR BEST FRIEND: “SHEER INCOMPETENCE” DOES NOT PERSUADE A COURT TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION
CPR 17.(4) is always one of the most “challenging” sections of the Limitation Act in practice. Amending the name of a party after the expiry of the limitation period is not always easy. The judgment in Best Friends Group & Anor…
THE THREE YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD: HOW DOES ANYONE MISS IT?
This blog has covered numerous cases relating to Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980. It is worthwhile considering what causes a lawyer to miss a basic three year limitation period. In In Greater Manchester Police v Carroll [2017] EWCA Civ 1992 the…
LIMITATION PERIOD RUNS FROM DATE OF COMPLETION OF WORK: AGREED TERMS FOR PAYMENT DO NOT EXTEND LIMITATION PERIOD
In Ice Architects Ltd v Empowering People Inspiring Communities (Rev 1) [2018] EWHC 281 (QB) Mrs Justice Lambert found that the six year contractual limitation period ran from the date of completion of work and not the date of invoice. A…
SECTION 33 IN AN INDUSTRIAL DEAFNESS CASE: COURT OF APPEAL SAYS NO
We are looking again at the decision in Carr v Panel Products (Kimpton) Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 190 This was the first time the Court of Appeal had considered Section 33 of the Limitation Act since the decision in Carroll v Chief…
LIMITATION: DATE OF KNOWLEDGE: IT IS A MATTER OF FACT
I used to write a section/chapter on limitation in a legal looseleaf. The part on “date of knowledge” was, of course, my favourite*. Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1980 has led to many cases in relation to date of…
LIMITATION: WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MAKES: LIMITATION PERIOD STARTS TO RUN ON DAY CAUSE OF ACTION BEGINS
In Matthew & Ors v Sedman & Ors [2017] EWHC 3527 (Ch) His Honour Judge Hodge QC (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) had to consider an interesting issue in relation to limitation. “… where it is absolutely clear…
GOBBETS AND LIMITATION: ISSUES AT THE DREAMING SPIRES
There are many fascinating aspects of the judgment in Siddiqui v The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford [2018] EWHC 184 (QB). As is often the case I have chosen to concentrate on one of the most prosaic…
LIMITATION: DISEMBARKATION AND THE TWO YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD: THE BARQUE AND THE BIGHT
In Collins v Lawrence [2017] EWCA 2268 Civ Lord Justice Hamblen considered an issue under limitation and the Convention Relating to Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea (the “Athens Convention”). It serves as an important reminder that many cases…
SEEKING AN EXTENSION OF TIME – WHEN YOU ARE 9 1/2 YEARS LATE: THE IMPORTANCE OF A SOLICITOR KEEPING A RECORD
Section 4 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 provides that a claim under the Act should normally be brought within six months of the date on which representation is taken out. An action brought at a…
LIMITATION AMNESTIES: AN INTERESTING CASE
There is an interesting case comment on the DACbeachcroft website in relation to limitation amnesties. Andrews v South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust The comment is by Joe Walton. It reports a case where a claimant sought an extension of…
You must be logged in to post a comment.