When it comes to negligence, ignorance certainly isn’t bliss, says Tim Trotman
Section 14A (9) of the Limitation Act 1980 provides “knowledge that any acts or omissions did or did not, as a matter of law, involve negligence is irrelevant for purposes of sub-s (5) above”. It may be relevant to ask whose negligence is under consideration. The question arises especially in the context of an action for alleged professional negligence by lawyers, where the substantive claim also involved professional duties; this was a major point in Chinnock v Veale Wasbrough and another [2015] EWCA Civ 441, [2015] All ER (D) 65 (May) where the substantive claim was one of clinical negligence.
Authorities before Chinnock
By way of background, in Oakes v Hopcroft 2000 Ll RPM 246, [2000] All ER (D) 1064, the claimant bringing a personal injury claim, was advised by a medical expert that the index injury had not caused her inability to work. She settled for a modest sum. Seven years later a medical report identified a permanent brachial plexus traction injury; and
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
