Johnson v Ministry of Defence & Anor

Johnson v Ministry of Defence & Anor

It is arguable that the claimant did not have actual knowledge that his deafness was attributable to workplace conditions before October 2007, and therefore the limitation period may not have expired by the time proceedings were issued.

Parties
Applicant/claimant: Johnson; Respondent/defendant: Ministry of Defence; Respondent/defendant: Hobourn Eaton Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Limitation Period, Date of Knowledge, Employer's Duty of Care, Personal Injury From Workplace Noise
Personal Injury Limitation Limitation Period Date of Knowledge Employer's Duty of Care Personal Injury From Workplace Noise

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

Parties

Johnson

Applicant/claimant

Ministry of Defence

Respondent/defendant

Hobourn Eaton Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant had actual knowledge within the meaning of section 14(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 that his injury was attributable to the alleged breach of duty
  2. 2 Whether the claim was issued within the limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

It is arguable that the claimant did not have actual knowledge that his deafness was attributable to workplace conditions before October 2007, and therefore the limitation period may not have expired by the time proceedings were issued.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal is granted
  • The appeal should undergo mediation under the Court of Appeal Mediation Scheme