Skerratt v Linfax Ltd. (t/a Go Karting for Fun) [2003] EWCA Civ 695 (06 May 2003)

Skerratt v Linfax Ltd. (t/a Go Karting for Fun) [2003] EWCA Civ 695 (06 May 2003)

There was no deliberate concealment by the defendant within the meaning of section 32, as no representation was made post-accident or with intent to conceal facts relevant to the cause of action. The claimant, with reasonable diligence, should have consulted lawyers earlier. The District Judge's exercise of discretion under section 33 was correct, as the claimant failed to discharge the burden for extension, and the delay prejudiced the defendant's ability to defend the claim.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 695
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Keith Skerratt; Defendant/respondent: Linfax Limited t/a Go Karting For Fun
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Preliminary Limitation Ruling of District Judge
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Deliberate Concealment, Equitable Extension of Limitation Period, Personal Injury Liability, Disclaimer Forms
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Limitation of Actions Deliberate Concealment Equitable Extension of Limitation Period Personal Injury Liability Disclaimer Forms

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keith Skerratt

Claimant/appellant

Linfax Limited t/a Go Karting For Fun

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Preliminary Limitation Ruling of District Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 applies due to alleged deliberate concealment by the defendant
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to allow the claim to proceed out of time

Ratio Decidendi

There was no deliberate concealment by the defendant within the meaning of section 32, as no representation was made post-accident or with intent to conceal facts relevant to the cause of action. The claimant, with reasonable diligence, should have consulted lawyers earlier. The District Judge's exercise of discretion under section 33 was correct, as the claimant failed to discharge the burden for extension, and the delay prejudiced the defendant's ability to defend the claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to be assessed if not agreed
  • Interim payment of costs on account in the sum of £4,000