Negligence, limitation of actions

Citation

Lee, R. (2007), "Negligence, limitation of actions", Property Management, Vol. 25 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/pm.2007.11325cab.004

Negligence, limitation of actions

The exact meaning of the “knowledge” required in s.14A Limitation Act 1982 in order to start running the three year period for bringing a claim has been tested in a number of recent cases such as Hawards v. Fawcett (a firm) (2006) HL 9 (2006) 1 WLR 682 (see, Property Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, 2006, pp. 512-513). In that case the House of Lords held that it was not necessary for the claimant to know that negligence had occurred it was sufficient that he or she was aware that there was “something wrong” with the defendant’s advice that he or she had relied on before time would begin to run.

In 3M United Kingdom plc v. Linklaters and Paines (2006]) EWCA Civ 530, 28 EG 108 the Court of Appeal had to consider how serious the likely loss or damage to the appellants would need to be in order for them to be deemed to have “knowledge” of it. The relevant words of s.14A(7) are “such facts about the damage as would lead a reasonable person who had suffered such damage to consider it sufficiently serious to justify instituting proceedings for damages against a defendant who did not dispute liability and was able to satisfy a judgement”.

The Court of Appeal held that s.14A is concerned only with whether bringing a legal action would be worthwhile based on what the claimant knows about “the damage”. It is not necessary at that time for the claimant to know enough to justify issuing proceedings. They would know enough to “start the ball rolling” by submitting a claim, taking advice or collecting evidence for example. Thus the three-year period begins to run once the claimant knows that it has lost valuable rights even if this may not actually result in any financial loss.

The law is stated, as it is believed to be as at 5 March 2007.

Rosalind Lee