header-logo header-logo

09 March 2007 / Colin Moore , Paula Jefferson
Issue: 7263 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Time for a change

Paula Jefferson and Colin Moore uncover some of the limitations of the Limitation Act 1980

It has long been appreciated that a claimant should not have an indefinite period in which to bring a civil claim. Memories will fade and evidence will be lost until it becomes inequitable, if not impossible, for a fair trial to proceed. It is also undesirable for potential defendants, and their insurers to remain in limbo, anticipating claims. These factors were among the precursors to the legislative framework, enacted in the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980), which prescribes the time limits for claimants to issue proceedings in civil claims.

Negligence, nuisance and breach of statutory duty

For personal injury claims arising from negligence, nuisance or breach of statutory duty, s 11 of LA 1980 sets a three-year time limit from the claimant’s ‘date of knowledge’ in which to issue proceedings. Date of know­ledge is defined as the date on which the claimant first knew:

  • that the injury was significant;
  • that the injury was caused by an
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

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll