header-logo header-logo

13 June 2014
Issue: 7610 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Limitation of action

Collins v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and another [2014] EWCA Civ 717, [2014] All ER (D) 44 (Jun)

Sections 11 to 14 of the Limitation Act 1980 struck a balance between the interests of: (i) persons who, having suffered latent injuries, sought compensation late in the day; and (ii) tortfeasors who, despite their wrongdoings, ultimately needed closure. Parliament had struck that balance by means of an objective test. 

In the light of the established authorities, s 33(3) of the Act was to be construed in the following manner. First, the period of time which elapsed between a tortfeasor’s breach of duty and the commencement of the limitation period had to be part of “the circumstances of the case” within the meaning of s 33(3). Second, the primary factors to which the court had to have regard were those set out in s 33(3)(a) to (f). Third, although the court would have regard to time elapsed before the claimant’s date of knowledge, the court would accord less weight to that factor. It would

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll