header-logo header-logo

06 March 2008 / Malcolm Keen
Issue: 7311 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Know your limits

Malcolm Keen examines how a recent House of Lords ruling has affected occupational illness litigation

On 30 January 2008 the House of Lords announced its decisions in A v Hoare and other appeals [2008] UKHL 6, [2008] All ER (D) 251 (Jan)— appeals arising out of allegations of sexual assault and abuse. The cases concerned two main issues:

 

the appropriate limitation period in claims for intentionally caused personal injury; and

the test to determine date of knowledge where a claim is brought more than three years after the cause of action has accrued.

 

On the first issue, their lordships unanimously held that such claims are not subject to the non-extendable six-year limitation period (running from the date the cause of action accrued) under the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980), s 2. Instead, claims for intentional personal injury are covered by LA 1980, ss 11 and 14.

 

DATE OF KNOWLEDGE

It is the second issue which is of particular significance in occupational illness litigation. Claims for damages for personal injury arising from

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll