Skerratt v Linfax Ltd. (t/a Go Karting for Fun)

Skerratt v Linfax Ltd. (t/a Go Karting for Fun)

There was no deliberate concealment by the defendant within the meaning of section 32. The claimant, with reasonable diligence, should have discovered his cause of action earlier by consulting lawyers. The District Judge was entitled to find that the claimant's reason for delay was not sufficient and that the defendant would be prejudiced by the delay. The discretion under section 33 was properly exercised against extending time.

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
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decision on Preliminary Limitation Points
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Personal Injury, Equitable Discretion, Deliberate Concealment, Extension of Limitation Period
Tort Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Personal Injury Equitable Discretion Deliberate Concealment Extension of Limitation Period

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

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decision on Preliminary Limitation Points

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the limitation period should be extended under section 32 or section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether there was deliberate concealment by the defendant
  3. 3 Whether the claimant had a good reason for delay in bringing the claim

Ratio Decidendi

There was no deliberate concealment by the defendant within the meaning of section 32. The claimant, with reasonable diligence, should have discovered his cause of action earlier by consulting lawyers. The District Judge was entitled to find that the claimant's reason for delay was not sufficient and that the defendant would be prejudiced by the delay. The discretion under section 33 was properly exercised against extending time.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed
  • Interim payment of costs on account in the sum of £4,000