Keith Patten applauds the courts’ efforts to uphold Parliament’s intention for s 33
The cynic who says that lawyers’ primary interest lies in creating work for lawyers might well find comfort in the Limitation Act 1980, s 33. This piece of legislation has entertained the Court of Appeal on over a dozen occasions in the last decade, and once or twice the House of Lords as well. Even when issues seem to have been settled it transpires that they can still raise their heads again, as shown in the recent Court of Appeal decision in the conjoined appeals of Aktas v Adepta: Dixie v British Polythene Industries PLC [2010] EWCA Civ 1170, [2010] All ER (D) 223 (Oct).
For all practical purposes the facts of these two cases were identical. Claimants were pursuing personal injury claims for accidents in respect of which the defendants had admitted liability. Proceedings were issued very close to the expiry of the limitation period and, due to negligence on the part of the claimants’ solicitors, were not served within their four-month validity. The claimants then issued fresh sets of proceedings outside
