header-logo header-logo

No time to waste

05 January 2018 / Simon Anderson
Issue: 7775 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Personal injury , Limitation
printer mail-detail
nlj_7775_anderson

Simon Anderson discusses the elastic limitation period post-Carroll

  • A defendant cannot sit on its laurels and argue that it has been prejudiced by the mere fact of the expiry of the primary limitation period in personal injury claims.

The claimant was a serving police officer involved in covert drug operations that required him to undertake test purchases of heroin. His case centred on an allegation that he was exposed to the drug in circumstances that led to him become addicted and subsequently develop a serious depressive disorder. Limitation was tried as a preliminary issue and the claimant succeeded as a litigant in person. The defendant appealed.

On appeal to the Court of Appeal the claimant accepted that the trial judge had erred by taking into account the consequences of disclosing his addiction to his employer as part of the s 14 enquiry; indeed, he must have appreciated that he was addicted when consulting the Lifeline drugs charity more than four years before his claim was brought. It was therefore between

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

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll