Fletcher v Containerbase (Manchester) Ltd.

Fletcher v Containerbase (Manchester) Ltd.

The judge's exercise of discretion under section 33 was justified, as he considered all relevant circumstances, including the development of the claimant's case and the lack of significant prejudice to the defendant due to the delay. There was no error warranting appellate interference.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Paul Barry Fletcher; Defendants/appellants: Containerbase (Manchester) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Manchester County Court Decision on Limitation and Discretion Under Section 33 of the Limitation Act
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Discretion to Disapply Limitation, Personal Injury From Occupational Exposure
Tort Law Personal Injury Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Discretion to Disapply Limitation Personal Injury From Occupational Exposure

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Barry Fletcher

Claimant/respondent

Containerbase (Manchester) Ltd

Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Manchester County Court Decision on Limitation and Discretion Under Section 33 of the Limitation Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in exercising discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act to allow the claim to proceed out of time
  2. 2 Whether the delay prejudiced the defendant such that the action should not be allowed to proceed

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's exercise of discretion under section 33 was justified, as he considered all relevant circumstances, including the development of the claimant's case and the lack of significant prejudice to the defendant due to the delay. There was no error warranting appellate interference.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Respondent's costs assessed at £8,585.14