header-logo header-logo

08 February 2007
Issue: 7259 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

LIMITATION

McCoubrey v Ministry of Defence [2007] EWCA Civ 17, [2007] All ER (D) 185 (Jan)

The question of whether an injury is significant within s 14(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1980, as expanded in s 14(2), must be decided by reference to the seriousness of the injury, and not by reference to its effect or perceived effect on the claimant’s private life or career.

Section 14(2) requires consideration of whether the claimants ought reasonably to have appreciated that their injuries were serious. The effect of the injury on the claimant’s private life or career prospects does not impinge on the issue of whether the injury itself was sufficiently serious.

Issue: 7259 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Mark Hastings, Quillon Law

NLJ Career Profile: Mark Hastings, Quillon Law

Mark Hastings, founding partner of Quillon Law, on turning dreams into reality and pushing back on preconceptions about partnership

Kingsley Napley—Silvia Devecchi

Kingsley Napley—Silvia Devecchi

New family law partner for Italian and international clients appointed

Mishcon de Reya—Susannah Kintish

Mishcon de Reya—Susannah Kintish

Firm elects new chair of tier 1 ranked employment department

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll