Kew v Bettamix Ltd & Ors

Kew v Bettamix Ltd & Ors

The limitation period began on 29 March 2000 when the respondent had constructive knowledge of a significant injury attributable to his work. The judge's exercise of discretion under section 33 to disapply the limitation period was justified and open to her on the facts. However, the costs order was not properly balanced; the appellants should pay only 65% of the respondent's costs of the preliminary issue.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: Ian Kew; Appellant/defendant: Bettamix Limited (formerly Tarmac Roadstone Southern Limited); Appellant/defendant: Tarmac Roadstone Limited; Appellant/defendant: Situsec Contractors Limited; Appellant/defendant: Tarmac Contractors Limited; Appellant/defendant: FM Conway
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court, Preliminary Issue on Limitation and Costs
Outcome
Appeal on limitation dismissed; appeal on costs allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Industrial Disease, Judicial Discretion, Costs Orders
Employment Law Personal Injury Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Industrial Disease Judicial Discretion 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Kew

Respondent/claimant

Bettamix Limited (formerly Tarmac Roadstone Southern Limited)

Appellant/defendant

Tarmac Roadstone Limited

Appellant/defendant

Situsec Contractors Limited

Appellant/defendant

Tarmac Contractors Limited

Appellant/defendant

FM Conway

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court, Preliminary Issue on Limitation and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When did the limitation period start to run for the respondent's industrial injury claim?
  2. 2 Should the court exercise its discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act to disapply the limitation period?
  3. 3 Was the costs order at first instance appropriate given the outcome on the preliminary issues?

Ratio Decidendi

The limitation period began on 29 March 2000 when the respondent had constructive knowledge of a significant injury attributable to his work. The judge's exercise of discretion under section 33 to disapply the limitation period was justified and open to her on the facts. However, the costs order was not properly balanced; the appellants should pay only 65% of the respondent's costs of the preliminary issue.

Court Disposition

Appeal on limitation dismissed; appeal on costs allowed in part.

Orders

  • The respondent's claim may proceed; limitation period disapplied under section 33.
  • Appellants to pay 65% of respondent's costs of and incidental to the preliminary issue of limitation.