Burgin v Sheffield City Council & Anor

Burgin v Sheffield City Council & Anor

The judge did not err in principle or act outside the reasonable ambit of discretion in allowing the claim to proceed under section 33, as there was insufficient evidence of significant prejudice to the Council and the balancing exercise was properly conducted.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: Bryan Burgin; Appellant/first Defendant: Sheffield City Council; Second Defendant: SFE Utilities Services PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision on Limitation (preliminary Issue)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Discretion to Disapply Limitation Period, Section 33 Limitation Act 1980, Vibration White Finger (vwf)/hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (havs), Apportionment of Liability, Prejudice Due to Delay
Limitation Law Personal Injury Discretion to Disapply Limitation Period Section 33 Limitation Act 1980 Vibration White Finger (vwf)/hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (havs) Apportionment of Liability Prejudice Due to Delay

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bryan Burgin

Respondent/claimant

Sheffield City Council

Appellant/first Defendant

SFE Utilities Services PLC

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision on Limitation (preliminary Issue)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in exercising discretion under section 33(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 to allow the claim to proceed out of time against the Council
  2. 2 Whether the respondent had the requisite knowledge for limitation purposes before 1995
  3. 3 Whether the delay prejudiced the Council's ability to defend the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The judge did not err in principle or act outside the reasonable ambit of discretion in allowing the claim to proceed under section 33, as there was insufficient evidence of significant prejudice to the Council and the balancing exercise was properly conducted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Action to proceed against Sheffield City Council
  • Respondent awarded costs of the appeal, subject to detailed assessment and determination of success fee