HMG3 Ltd & Anor v Dunn

HMG3 Ltd & Anor v Dunn

The judge's findings that the delay was excusable and that the defendants' position was not materially worsened since 2008 were open to him on the evidence. There was no material error of principle or unsound foundation in the exercise of discretion under s.33. The appeal court should not interfere.

Parties
Defendant/appellant: HMG3 LTD; Defendant/appellant: Z D BERRY & SONS LIMITED; Claimant/respondent: Suzanne Dunn (Executrix of the Estate of George Dunn, Deceased)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Exercise of Discretion Under S.33 Limitation Act 1980
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Discretion to Disapply Limitation Period, Excusable Delay, Prejudice to Parties, Fatal Accidents Act Claims, Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act Claims
Civil Procedure Limitation Law Personal Injury Discretion to Disapply Limitation Period Excusable Delay Prejudice to Parties Fatal Accidents Act Claims Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) Act Claims

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HMG3 LTD

Defendant/appellant

Z D BERRY & SONS LIMITED

Defendant/appellant

Suzanne Dunn (Executrix of the Estate of George Dunn, Deceased)

Claimant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Exercise of Discretion Under S.33 Limitation Act 1980

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in exercising discretion under s.33 Limitation Act 1980 to allow the claim to proceed out of time
  2. 2 Whether the delay in bringing the claim was excusable
  3. 3 Whether the defendants suffered additional prejudice due to the delay after 2008

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's findings that the delay was excusable and that the defendants' position was not materially worsened since 2008 were open to him on the evidence. There was no material error of principle or unsound foundation in the exercise of discretion under s.33. The appeal court should not interfere.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; trial judge's exercise of discretion under s.33 Limitation Act 1980 upheld