Leeson v Marsden & Anor [2008] EWHC 1011 (QB) (13 May 2008)

Leeson v Marsden & Anor [2008] EWHC 1011 (QB) (13 May 2008)

The court held that, following Horton v Sadler, it had jurisdiction to exercise discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 in a second action brought after the first was struck out for procedural reasons. The court found that, on the facts, it was equitable to disapply the limitation period and permit the claim to proceed. The court rejected the Defendants' argument that the second action was an abuse of process, holding that the circumstances did not justify striking out the claim and that any prejudice to the Defendants could be addressed within the section 33 analysis.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 1011 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Susan Leeson; First Defendant: Rachael Marsden; Second Defendant: United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Clinical Negligence/personal Injury / Trial of Preliminary Issues on Limitation and Abuse of Process
Outcome
Claim allowed to proceed; limitation period disapplied under section 33; application to strike out for abuse of process refused.
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Abuse of Process, Discretion Under Limitation Act 1980 S.33, Clinical Negligence, Personal Injury
Tort Law Medical Negligence Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Abuse of Process Discretion Under Limitation Act 1980 S.33 Clinical Negligence Personal Injury

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susan Leeson

Claimant

Rachael Marsden

First Defendant

United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Clinical Negligence/personal Injury / Trial of Preliminary Issues on Limitation and Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the limitation period and permit the claim to proceed
  2. 2 Whether the action is an abuse of process and should be struck out

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, following Horton v Sadler, it had jurisdiction to exercise discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 in a second action brought after the first was struck out for procedural reasons. The court found that, on the facts, it was equitable to disapply the limitation period and permit the claim to proceed. The court rejected the Defendants' argument that the second action was an abuse of process, holding that the circumstances did not justify striking out the claim and that any prejudice to the Defendants could be addressed within the section 33 analysis.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed to proceed; limitation period disapplied under section 33; application to strike out for abuse of process refused.

Orders

  • Limitation period disapplied under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980.
  • Claim permitted to proceed against both Defendants.