header-logo header-logo

06 March 2008 / Malcolm Keen
Issue: 7311 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Know your limits

Malcolm Keen examines how a recent House of Lords ruling has affected occupational illness litigation

On 30 January 2008 the House of Lords announced its decisions in A v Hoare and other appeals [2008] UKHL 6, [2008] All ER (D) 251 (Jan)— appeals arising out of allegations of sexual assault and abuse. The cases concerned two main issues:

 

the appropriate limitation period in claims for intentionally caused personal injury; and

the test to determine date of knowledge where a claim is brought more than three years after the cause of action has accrued.

 

On the first issue, their lordships unanimously held that such claims are not subject to the non-extendable six-year limitation period (running from the date the cause of action accrued) under the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980), s 2. Instead, claims for intentional personal injury are covered by LA 1980, ss 11 and 14.

 

DATE OF KNOWLEDGE

It is the second issue which is of particular significance in occupational illness litigation.

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll