header-logo header-logo

25 October 2013 / Tim Hirst
Issue: 7581 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail

A return to uncertainty

171156032

The courts have muddied the water with their approach to limitation in professional liability cases, says Tim Hirst

The conflicting judicial approach to limitation in professional liability cases is revealed yet again in the Court of Appeal decision in Berney v Saul [2013] EWCA Civ 640.

This arose out of a mishandled personal injury (PI) claim arising out of a road traffic accident on 20 April 1999. The claim form was issued at the last gasp on 12 April 2002 and was directed to an incorrectly named defendant. The claim form was finally re-issued on 20 April 2002. No particulars of claim was served within the requisite four months (19 August 2002).

The defendants acknowledged service and admitted liability. They went further and gave an assurance that they would take no point arising out of the claimant’s delay.

New solicitors appointed by the claimant warned her on 2 June 2004 that her claim was vulnerable to an application to strike out. Ominously, the defendant in the PI claim withdrew its assurance on

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll