Platt v BRB (Residuary) Ltd

Platt v BRB (Residuary) Ltd

It was reasonable to expect Mr Platt to have asked his ENT doctor in 1997 about the cause of his hearing loss; therefore, he had constructive knowledge under section 14(3) of the Limitation Act 1980 more than three years before issuing his claim, rendering the claim statute barred.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Howard Platt; Defendant/appellant: BRB (Residuary) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claim statute barred
Legal Topics
Constructive Knowledge, Limitation Period, Noise Induced Hearing Loss, Statutory Interpretation
Personal Injury Limitation Constructive Knowledge Limitation Period Noise Induced Hearing Loss Statutory Interpretation

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Howard Platt

Claimant/respondent

BRB (Residuary) Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Platt had constructive knowledge under sections 14(1)(b) and 14(3) of the Limitation Act 1980 that his injury was attributable to acts or omissions of BRB
  2. 2 Whether the claim was statute barred due to limitation

Ratio Decidendi

It was reasonable to expect Mr Platt to have asked his ENT doctor in 1997 about the cause of his hearing loss; therefore, he had constructive knowledge under section 14(3) of the Limitation Act 1980 more than three years before issuing his claim, rendering the claim statute barred.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claim statute barred

Orders

  • Judgment for BRB on the limitation issue
  • Reversal of paragraph 1 of the order dated 28th November 2013