Malone v Relyon Heating Engineering Ltd

Malone v Relyon Heating Engineering Ltd

The judge erred by treating the injury as indivisible and applying a single limitation period to the entire employment. The correct approach required separate consideration of pre- and post-2001 injury, reflecting the divisible nature of hearing loss. The delay in notifying the claim caused significant prejudice to the appellant, and it was not equitable to disapply the limitation period under section 33 for either period. The appeal was allowed and the claim dismissed.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Anthony Malone; Defendant/appellant: Relyon Heating Engineering Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Negligence, Limitation Periods, Breach of Statutory Duty, Noise Induced Hearing Loss
Tort Law Employment Law Limitation of Actions Personal Injury Negligence Limitation Periods Breach of Statutory Duty Noise Induced Hearing Loss

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Malone

Claimant/respondent

Relyon Heating Engineering Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in disapplying the limitation period under section 33 Limitation Act 1980 for a claim of noise-induced hearing loss and tinnitus arising from employment.
  2. 2 Whether the injury was divisible and required separate consideration for pre- and post-2001 periods.

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred by treating the injury as indivisible and applying a single limitation period to the entire employment. The correct approach required separate consideration of pre- and post-2001 injury, reflecting the divisible nature of hearing loss. The delay in notifying the claim caused significant prejudice to the appellant, and it was not equitable to disapply the limitation period under section 33 for either period. The appeal was allowed and the claim dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claim dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The respondent's claim is dismissed.