header-logo header-logo

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

No time to waste

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

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson appoints Vicky Tomlinson as Head of Independent Health and Care

DWF—five appointments

DWF—five appointments

DWF further strengthens major injury and casualty offering with new partner and four directors from DAC Beachcroft

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis strengthens Grimsby child care team

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll