Mossa v Wise [2017] EWHC 2608 (QB) (19 October 2017)

Mossa v Wise [2017] EWHC 2608 (QB) (19 October 2017)

The Master correctly exercised his discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, properly balancing the prejudice to both parties and considering the available evidence. The costs order was also within the Master's discretion given the interconnectedness of the issues. There was no error in principle or misapplication of the law justifying appellate interference.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2608 (QB)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: The Estate of Mr Mohammed Mossa; Respondent/claimant: Barbara Wise
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Master's Order on Limitation and Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Discretion Under Limitation Act 1980 S.33, Informed Consent, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Medical Negligence Limitation of Actions Discretion Under Limitation Act 1980 S.33 Informed Consent Costs Orders

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Estate of Mr Mohammed Mossa

Appellant/defendant

Barbara Wise

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Master's Order on Limitation and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred in exercising discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to allow the claim to proceed out of time
  2. 2 Whether the Master erred in awarding the Claimant her costs of the preliminary limitation issue

Ratio Decidendi

The Master correctly exercised his discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, properly balancing the prejudice to both parties and considering the available evidence. The costs order was also within the Master's discretion given the interconnectedness of the issues. There was no error in principle or misapplication of the law justifying appellate interference.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal against the Master's order allowing the claim to proceed under section 33 is dismissed.
  • The appeal against the costs order is dismissed.