Barrow v Cosignia Plc [2003] EWCA Civ 249 (18 February 2003)

Barrow v Cosignia Plc [2003] EWCA Civ 249 (18 February 2003)

The amendments to the pleadings in the first action constituted new causes of action and were time-barred; the appeal was allowed and the original order restored. However, due to the overlap of factual issues and risk of injustice, the court exercised its discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the limitation period for the second action, allowing it to proceed.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 249
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Gary Barrow; Respondent/defendant: Consignia plc (formerly known as The Post Office)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Liverpool County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal allowed; no order as to costs of the appeal; order of the District Judge on costs restored; costs order of Judge Marshall-Evans reversed; case to be expedited.
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Negligence, Limitation Periods, Amendment of Pleadings, Causation, Mitigation of Loss, Discretion Under Limitation Act 1980 S.33
Tort Law Employment Law Limitation of Actions Personal Injury Negligence Limitation Periods Amendment of Pleadings Causation +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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Barrow

Appellant/claimant

Consignia plc (formerly known as The Post Office)

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Liverpool County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether amendments to pleadings constituted a new cause of action and were time-barred
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the limitation period for the second action
  3. 3 Whether events during the 'contested period' could be relied upon for causation and liability

Ratio Decidendi

The amendments to the pleadings in the first action constituted new causes of action and were time-barred; the appeal was allowed and the original order restored. However, due to the overlap of factual issues and risk of injustice, the court exercised its discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the limitation period for the second action, allowing it to proceed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal allowed; no order as to costs of the appeal; order of the District Judge on costs restored; costs order of Judge Marshall-Evans reversed; case to be expedited.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in relation to the first action and order of Deputy District Judge restored.
  • Cross-appeal allowed and section 33 discretion exercised to disapply limitation period for the second action.