Rayner v Wolferstans (A Firm) & Anor

Rayner v Wolferstans (A Firm) & Anor

The claimant had requisite knowledge for limitation purposes by 22 July 2004, making the claim against Medway statute-barred unless section 33 discretion is exercised. The claim against Wolferstans in contract was statute-barred, but not in tort. Section 33 discretion was exercised to allow the claim against Medway to proceed, as prejudice to Medway was outweighed by prejudice to the claimant and contemporaneous evidence was available.

Parties
Claimant: Kara Rayner; 1st Defendant: Wolferstans (A Firm); 2nd Defendant: Medway NHS Foundation Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Preliminary Issues and Section 33 Application
Outcome
Section 33 discretion exercised; claim against Medway allowed to proceed; claim against Wolferstans in contract statute-barred; claim against Wolferstans in tort not statute-barred.
Legal Topics
Limitation Period, Date of Knowledge, Section 33 Discretion, Loss of Chance, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Breach of Contract, Breach of Duty
Limitation Law Professional Negligence Medical Negligence Limitation Period Date of Knowledge Section 33 Discretion Loss of Chance Res Ipsa Loquitur +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kara Rayner

Claimant

Wolferstans (A Firm)

1st Defendant

Medway NHS Foundation Trust

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment on Preliminary Issues and Section 33 Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When did the claimant acquire the requisite knowledge for limitation purposes under sections 11 and 14 of the Limitation Act 1980?
  2. 2 Was the claim against Wolferstans statute-barred in contract?
  3. 3 Should the court exercise discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to allow the claim against Medway to proceed?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant had requisite knowledge for limitation purposes by 22 July 2004, making the claim against Medway statute-barred unless section 33 discretion is exercised. The claim against Wolferstans in contract was statute-barred, but not in tort. Section 33 discretion was exercised to allow the claim against Medway to proceed, as prejudice to Medway was outweighed by prejudice to the claimant and contemporaneous evidence was available.

Court Disposition

Section 33 discretion exercised; claim against Medway allowed to proceed; claim against Wolferstans in contract statute-barred; claim against Wolferstans in tort not statute-barred.

Orders

  • Section 11 of the Limitation Act 1980 shall not apply to the action brought by the claimant against Medway.
  • Claim against Wolferstans in contract is statute-barred.