Ellis v Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust & Ors [2018] EWHC 3505 (Ch) (20 December 2018)

Ellis v Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust & Ors [2018] EWHC 3505 (Ch) (20 December 2018)

It is just and equitable to allow the claim against the Third Defendant to proceed because the Third Defendant suffered no identifiable prejudice from the delay, was notified early, and had full opportunity to investigate and defend the claim, whereas the Claimant would suffer profound prejudice if not allowed to proceed.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 3505 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: David Ellis; First Defendant: Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust; Second Defendant: University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust; Third Defendant: Dr Swayam Iyer
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Clinical Negligence / Preliminary Issue on Limitation (section 33 Limitation Act 1980)
Outcome
Claim against the Third Defendant allowed to proceed out of time under Section 33 Limitation Act 1980.
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Discretion to Disapply Limitation, Section 33 Limitation Act 1980, Balance of Prejudice, Equitable Relief
Tort Law Medical Negligence Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Discretion to Disapply Limitation Section 33 Limitation Act 1980 Balance of Prejudice Equitable Relief

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Ellis

Claimant

Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust

First Defendant

University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust

Second Defendant

Dr Swayam Iyer

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Clinical Negligence / Preliminary Issue on Limitation (section 33 Limitation Act 1980)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim against the Third Defendant is statute barred under Sections 11 and 14 of the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion under Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to allow the claim to proceed out of time

Ratio Decidendi

It is just and equitable to allow the claim against the Third Defendant to proceed because the Third Defendant suffered no identifiable prejudice from the delay, was notified early, and had full opportunity to investigate and defend the claim, whereas the Claimant would suffer profound prejudice if not allowed to proceed.

Court Disposition

Claim against the Third Defendant allowed to proceed out of time under Section 33 Limitation Act 1980.

Orders

  • Parties to agree the form of order reflecting the judgment, including costs.