Collins v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills

Collins v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills

The Claimant had constructive knowledge by mid-2003 that his lung cancer might be attributable to asbestos exposure. The claim was issued more than three years after this date. The court declined to exercise its discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to allow the claim to proceed out of time, as the balance of prejudice did not favour the Claimant and the claim had significant weaknesses.

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 / Ruling on Preliminary Issue of Limitation
Outcome
Claim dismissed as statute-barred; limitation defence succeeds.
Legal Topics
Limitation Period, Constructive Knowledge, Section 33 Discretion, Asbestos Exposure, Industrial Disease
Tort Law Personal Injury Limitation of Actions 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 6 Authorities cited 10 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 / Ruling on Preliminary Issue of Limitation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When did the Claimant have actual or constructive knowledge of the possible link between his lung cancer and asbestos exposure?
  2. 2 Should the court exercise its discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to allow the claim to proceed out of time?

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant had constructive knowledge by mid-2003 that his lung cancer might be attributable to asbestos exposure. The claim was issued more than three years after this date. The court declined to exercise its discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to allow the claim to proceed out of time, as the balance of prejudice did not favour the Claimant and the claim had significant weaknesses.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed as statute-barred; limitation defence succeeds.

Orders

  • Action dismissed.