Collins v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills [2013] EWHC 1117 (QB) (02 May 2013)

Collins v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills [2013] EWHC 1117 (QB) (02 May 2013)

Claimant had constructive knowledge of possible link between lung cancer and asbestos exposure by mid-2003; claim issued more than three years after that date; court refused to exercise discretion under s.33 to extend limitation period due to prejudice to defendants and weak merits of claim.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1117 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: George Collins; 1st Defendant: Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills; 2nd Defendant: Stena Line Irish Sea Ferries Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence Claim / Preliminary Issue Trial on Limitation
Outcome
Claim dismissed on limitation grounds.
Legal Topics
Limitation Period, Constructive Knowledge, Section 33 Discretion, Asbestos Exposure, Industrial Disease
Personal Injury Negligence Limitation Limitation Period Constructive Knowledge Section 33 Discretion Asbestos Exposure Industrial Disease

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Collins

Claimant

Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills

1st Defendant

Stena Line Irish Sea Ferries Ltd

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Negligence Claim / Preliminary Issue Trial on Limitation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When did the claimant acquire actual or constructive knowledge of the link between lung cancer and asbestos exposure?
  2. 2 Should the court exercise discretion under s.33 Limitation Act 1980 to extend time?

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant had constructive knowledge of possible link between lung cancer and asbestos exposure by mid-2003; claim issued more than three years after that date; court refused to exercise discretion under s.33 to extend limitation period due to prejudice to defendants and weak merits of claim.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed on limitation grounds.

Orders

  • Action dismissed.
  • Defendants' limitation defence succeeds.