Keith Patten examines the complex & inconsistent area of PI limitation law
The desire for certainty and finality has long been advanced as one of the traditional justifications for the existence of limitation periods. As such it is ironic that quite so many acres of forests have been used up to produce judgments on the intricate nuances of limitation in personal injury cases. The Court of Appeal has now added another contribution, but it is hard to see that anything has been clarified.
The case in question is Whiston v London Strategic Health Authority [2010] EWCA Civ 195, [2010] All ER (D) 56 (Mar). The claimant was born on 6 September 1974 and suffered cerebral palsy as a result of being deprived of oxygen during the birth process. The allegations of negligence were that a relatively junior doctor had persisted in an attempt at a forceps delivery for too long a period and with the wrong type of forceps. It was said that once a more senior doctor was called he achieved delivery with
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
