header-logo header-logo

A return to uncertainty

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll