Burgin v Sheffield City Council & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 482 (14 April 2005)

Burgin v Sheffield City Council & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 482 (14 April 2005)

The judge was entitled to exercise discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to allow the claim to proceed, as no significant prejudice to the Council was shown and the balancing exercise was properly conducted; the appellate court found no error in principle or decision plainly wrong.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 482
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Bryan Burgin; Appellant/first Defendant: The Sheffield City Council; Second Defendant: SFE Utilities Services PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Sheffield County Court Decision on Preliminary Limitation Issue
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods, Discretion Under Limitation Act 1980 S.33, Employer's Liability, Hand/arm Vibration Syndrome (havs)/vibration White Finger (vwf)
Personal Injury Limitation Law Limitation Periods Discretion Under Limitation Act 1980 S.33 Employer's Liability Hand/arm Vibration Syndrome (havs)/vibration White Finger (vwf)

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bryan Burgin

Respondent/claimant

The Sheffield City Council

Appellant/first Defendant

SFE Utilities Services PLC

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Sheffield County Court Decision on Preliminary Limitation Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim against the Council is time-barred under 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 judge was entitled to exercise discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to allow the claim to proceed, as no significant prejudice to the Council was shown and the balancing exercise was properly conducted; the appellate court found no error in principle or decision plainly wrong.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claim against the Council may proceed
  • Costs of the appeal to the respondent, with detailed assessment unless agreed