Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Date of Knowledge
LIMITATION AND EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS: CLAIMANT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE & ACTION ISSUED WITHIN TIME

LIMITATION AND EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS: CLAIMANT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE & ACTION ISSUED WITHIN TIME

March 26, 2021 · by gexall · in Limitation, Members Content, Personal Injury

In  Balls v Reeve & Anor [2021] EWHC 751 (QB) David Pittaway QC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) found that the claimant’s date of knowledge was not more than three years prior to issue. THE CASE…

LIMITATION AND DATE OF KNOWLEDGE: NO SPECIAL RULE BECAUSE THE CLAIMANT WAS A SOLICITOR

December 29, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Limitation, Members Content, Personal Injury, Uncategorized

I am grateful to Thomas Jervis of Leigh Day for sending me a copy of the judgment of Mr Justice Goss in Lewin -v- Glaxo Operations UK Limited [2016] EWHC 3331 (QB), an interesting decision in relation to limitation. (A…

LIMITATION AND THE DATE OF KNOWLEDGE: WHAT IS MEANT BY "SIGNIFICANT"?

November 2, 2015 · by gexall · in Limitation, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Summers -v- The City and County of Cardiff [2015] EWHC 3066 (QB) Mr Justice Hickinbottom considered what was meant by “significant” in s.14(1) of the Limitation Act 1980. “The test for “significance” of injury is one of quantum alone,…

THE DATE OF KNOWLEDGE AND SECTION 33: A CASE THAT CLINICAL AND PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYERS PROBABLY NEED TO READ

October 24, 2015 · by gexall · in Limitation, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Rayner -v- Wolferstans & Medway NHS Foundation Trust [2015] EWHC 2957 (QB) Mr Justice Wilkie carried out a comprehensive review of the law relating to date of knowledge and Section 33 of the Limitation Action 1980.  It also touches…

THE DATE OF KNOWLEDGE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE LIMITATION ACT: DELAY WHEN APPLYING TO SET JUDGMENT ASIDE

October 7, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Judgment, Limitation, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Uncategorized

In Blakemores LDP -v- Scott [2015] EWCA Civ 999 the Court of Appeal considered issues relating to date of knowledge for the purpose of  s.14A of the Limitation Act 1980 . The court also considered the impact of delay when…

DATE OF KNOWLEDGE AND SECTION 33 IN SEXUAL ABUSE CASES: A HIGH COURT DECISION

June 19, 2015 · by gexall · in Limitation, Members Content

In A -v- The Trustees of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society [2015] EWHC 1722 (QB) Mr Justice Globe considered the issue of the date of knowledge under s.14 of the Limitation Act 1980 and also stated that, had it…

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Subscription notifies you of a new post, it does not give you access to members' content.

Join 12.3K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHEN A RULE OR AN ORDER PRESCRIBES A PAGE LIMIT TO A WITNESS STATEMENT – THEN YOU’D BETTER STICK TO IT: THE COURT IS UNLIKELY TO CONDONE “FORENSIC CHEATING”
  • RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AS STRONGLY WORDED A REFUSAL AS I HAVE SEEN: THE CONCEPT “DOES NOT EMBODY A PRINCIPLE OF “BREACH NOW REPENT LATER”
  • CHILDREN AND FATAL ACCIDENT LITIGATION 2026: WEBINAR 30th JUNE 2026
  • COST BITES 406: CAN A PARTY RECOVER UNNECESSARY COSTS AS DAMAGES? THE CONSEQUENCES OF AN UNNECESSARY SECOND ACTION CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT
  • THE WEBINAR ON THE SRA GUIDANCE ON EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION: WHAT LITIGATION FIRMS NEED TO KNOW: TOGETHER WITH LOTS OF CHECKLISTS AND TEMPLATESNOW AVAILABLE “ON DEMAND”

Top Posts

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AS STRONGLY WORDED A REFUSAL AS I HAVE SEEN: THE CONCEPT "DOES NOT EMBODY A PRINCIPLE OF "BREACH NOW REPENT LATER"
ASKING THE JUDGE QUESTIONS AFTER JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED: THEY HAVE TO BE NECESSARY TO ENABLE THE PARTIES TO UNDERSTAND THE REASONING OF THE DECISION (AND THESE GO TOO FAR...)
THE COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS A JUDICIAL REVIEW DECISION IN FAVOUR OF A SOLICITOR: THE OMBUDSMAN GOT NOTHING WRONG (QUITE A LOT HERE ABOUT VULNERABLE CLIENTS AS WELL...)
AN APPLICATION TO SET A DEFAULT JUDGMENT ASIDE (1): THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE MERITS: THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE CONDUCTED A "MINI TRIAL"
AN APPLICATION TO SET A DEFAULT JUDGMENT ASIDE (3): THE DENTON CRITERIA CONSIDERED

Archives

Blogroll

  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Legal Futures
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 15th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Buntools (for preparing PDF Bundles)
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • The Law Society Gazette
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2025
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.

To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Membership Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertising Policy
  • Copyright
  • Legal Disclaimer

Copyright © 2026 Civil Litigation Brief ®

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop

Loading Comments...

You must be logged in to post a comment.