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

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll