header-logo header-logo

14 February 2008 / Paula Jefferson
Issue: 7308 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs , Limitation
printer mail-detail

Making history

Hoare could be a catalyst for further changes to limitation restrictions, says Paula Jefferson

 

As had been widely anticipated (see NLJ, 18 January 2008, pp 84–85), the House of Lords departed from its previous decision in Stubbings v Webb [1993] AC 498, [1993] 1 All ER 322 when it handed down judgment in the appeals of A v Hoare and other appeals [2008] UKHL 8, [2008] All ER (D) 251 (Jan) concerning limitation in assault and abuse cases. In Hoare, the House of Lords considered the historical development of the law of limitation in the context of personal injury claims. The need to reconsider limitation in these cases arose because under Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980), s 2, as had been held in Stubbings, the limitation period was a fixed six years. The claimants argued that this was an anomaly and their claims for personal injury, albeit caused by a deliberate assault, should be dealt with as for any other injury. Thus they should be able to argue for three years
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