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

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 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
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll