Norton v Corus UK Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1630 (13 November 2006)

Norton v Corus UK Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1630 (13 November 2006)

The claimant had constructive knowledge of his injury and its attribution to his work by at least 1997, as HAVS was a well-known industrial disease in the relevant area and industry, and a reasonable person would have sought medical advice leading to diagnosis. The claim was therefore statute-barred.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1630
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Norton; Defendant/respondent: Corus UK Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Limitation / Appeal From County Court Decision on Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Constructive Knowledge, Section 14 Limitation Act 1980, Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (havs), Burden of Proof
Personal Injury Limitation Law Constructive Knowledge Section 14 Limitation Act 1980 Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (havs) Burden of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norton

Claimant/appellant

Corus UK Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Limitation / Appeal From County Court Decision on Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's claim for personal injuries was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether the claimant had constructive knowledge of his injury more than three years before issuing proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant had constructive knowledge of his injury and its attribution to his work by at least 1997, as HAVS was a well-known industrial disease in the relevant area and industry, and a reasonable person would have sought medical advice leading to diagnosis. The claim was therefore statute-barred.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; original decision that the claim was time-barred upheld