Leeson v Marsden & Anor

Leeson v Marsden & Anor

The court held that section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 provides an unfettered discretion to allow a claim to proceed out of time if equitable, and that all circumstances—including prior use of court resources, prejudice to parties, and evidential cogency—must be considered. The claimant was not personally responsible for the delay caused by her solicitors, and the defendants suffered no material evidential prejudice. A fair trial was still possible, and the balance of prejudice favored the claimant. Abuse of process arguments based solely on prior court resource use do not override section 33 discretion in clinical negligence claims. The claim was allowed to proceed, subject to costs...

Parties
Claimant: Susan Leeson; First Defendant: Rachael Marsden; Second Defendant: United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury/clinical Negligence / Trial of Preliminary Issues on Limitation and Abuse of Process
Outcome
Claim allowed to proceed; limitation period disapplied under section 33.
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Abuse of Process, Section 33 Discretion, Professional Negligence, Clinical Negligence
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Medical Negligence Limitation of Actions Abuse of Process Section 33 Discretion Professional Negligence Clinical Negligence

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susan Leeson

Claimant

Rachael Marsden

First Defendant

United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury/clinical Negligence / Trial of Preliminary Issues on Limitation and Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the limitation period and permit the claim to proceed
  2. 2 Whether the action is an abuse of process and should be struck out

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 provides an unfettered discretion to allow a claim to proceed out of time if equitable, and that all circumstances—including prior use of court resources, prejudice to parties, and evidential cogency—must be considered. The claimant was not personally responsible for the delay caused by her solicitors, and the defendants suffered no material evidential prejudice. A fair trial was still possible, and the balance of prejudice favored the claimant. Abuse of process arguments based solely on prior court resource use do not override section 33 discretion in clinical negligence claims. The claim was allowed to proceed, subject to costs...

Court Disposition

Claim allowed to proceed; limitation period disapplied under section 33.

Orders

  • Costs incurred in relation to the first claim to be paid before this action proceeds further, with liberty to apply if difficulties arise.
  • Liberty to apply for directions constraining use of Mr. Hockley’s report if sought by the Trust.