header-logo header-logo

31 July 2008 / Seamus Burns
Issue: 7332 / Categories: Opinion
printer mail-detail

Justice— not a lottery?

The decision in Hoare represents a common sense approach to achieving justice, says Seamus Burns

Fears of the floodgates being opened following the High Court decision in A v Hoare [2008] EWHC 1573 (QB) (08 July 2008), [2008] All ER (D) 95 (Jul) are greatly exaggerated and misconceived.

However, Mr Justice Coulson's decision to exercise his discretion under s 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) and to disapply the relevant three-year limitation period, so that the claimant, Mrs A, was entitled to pursue her claim for damages, represents a welcome sign that the courts are prepared to fashion the law in a manner conducive to achieving justice.

Mrs A commenced her proceedings on 22 December 2004, more than 16 years after the defendant, Iorworth Hoare, had been convicted of attempted rape of her and sentenced to life imprisonment (and who had subsequently been released from prison on licence on 10 May 2004, and had fortuitously won £7m on the National Lottery, whilst still on day release).

The High Court decision follows hard

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll