header-logo header-logo

25 October 2013 / Adrian Kwintner
Issue: 7581 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Limitation
printer mail-detail

Time pressure

istock_000005139948medium

Adrian Kwintner reviews the s 14A special time limit for negligence actions

Recent cases on the extended limitation period under s 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) show that defendants, and their insurers, should carefully review the nature and extent of a claimant’s knowledge of the “material facts”. Cases could be summarily dismissed by arguing the claimant had the requisite knowledge earlier than alleged.

Limitation Act 1980

Primary limitation for negligence actions in tort is six years from accrual of the cause of action. Section 14A provides an additional time limit for actions not involving personal injury. It applies where the claimant does not have knowledge of all the material facts at the date his cause of action accrues. The limitation period can then be extended to three years from the earliest date when the claimant had the knowledge required for bringing an action and a right to bring an action.

Necessity versus conviction

The High Court case of Roger Ward Associates Ltd v Britannia Assets (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 1653

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll