Buckler v J F Finnegan Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 920 (21 June 2004)

Buckler v J F Finnegan Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 920 (21 June 2004)

The claimant had actual and constructive knowledge of his significant injury and the right to sue in 1991. There was no material change in his condition or knowledge to justify the delay. The judge misapplied Section 33 by failing to properly consider the length of delay and prejudice to the defendants. The claimant failed to discharge the heavy burden required to justify disapplying the limitation period. The appeal was allowed and the claim against the council could not proceed.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 920
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Peter Michael Buckler; First Defendant: J F Finnegan Ltd; Appellant/second Defendant: Sheffield City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheffield County Court Decision on Preliminary Limitation Issue
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods, Discretion to Disapply Limitation, Asbestos Related Disease, Constructive and Actual Knowledge, Section 33 Limitation Act 1980
Personal Injury Limitation Law Limitation Periods Discretion to Disapply Limitation Asbestos Related Disease Constructive and Actual Knowledge Section 33 Limitation Act 1980

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Michael Buckler

Respondent/claimant

J F Finnegan Ltd

First Defendant

Sheffield City Council

Appellant/second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheffield County Court Decision on Preliminary Limitation Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's action was statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise discretion under Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to allow the claim to proceed out of time

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant had actual and constructive knowledge of his significant injury and the right to sue in 1991. There was no material change in his condition or knowledge to justify the delay. The judge misapplied Section 33 by failing to properly consider the length of delay and prejudice to the defendants. The claimant failed to discharge the heavy burden required to justify disapplying the limitation period. The appeal was allowed and the claim against the council could not proceed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the county court disapplying limitation set aside
  • Claim against Sheffield City Council cannot proceed