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: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll