Case Law Review - Limitation
Date of Knowledge for Personal Injury Actions as per the Limitation Act 1980
CASE CITATION: Sir Robert Lloyd & Co Ltd & Others v Bernard Hoey [2011] EWCA Civ 1060
Précis of the Facts: The Claimant was a male aged 79, when he bought a claim for industrial disease following the diagnosis of pleural thickening in 2008. Liability was conceded as it had been established that the Claimant had been exposed to asbestos in the course of his employment with the Defendants.
The Claimant became aware of his symptoms between 1985 and 1987 when he initially suffered from chest pain. He sought medical attention where he had undergone a series of x-rays that confirmed pleural thickening. This condition was not considered to be a cause of his chest pain and he was therefore discharged from the chest clinic. The Claimant then continued with his employment and retired in 1992 when he was aged 60. His retirement was made on the grounds of ill health as he developed breathing difficulties.
In August 2007 he was referred to the hospital again and in 2008 he was diagnosed with bilateral diffuse pleural thickening and a large area of folded lung. Expert evidence was adduced to show that the pleural thickening would have caused the chest pain that the Claimant had suffered in the 1980’s.
The Defendants stated that The Claimants claim was statute barred as per the Limitation Act as the claimant’s symptom’s first became apparent in 1985-1987.
Held: at first instance: The Claimant was not aware of the significance of until 2008 as and therefore proceedings were not statute barred as they were brought within three years of his date of knowledge.
This decision was appealed by the Defendants
Held: The defendants appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal held, firstly, although the Claimant suffered a transient episode of chest pain in the 1980’s he did not know at that point that he had suffered a significant injury within the definition of s.14(2) of the Limitation Act (1980). The date of knowledge was actually in 2008. Secondly, the Claimant could not have known in the 1980’s that his injuries had been caused by the exposure to asbestos caused by the defendants .
