Sayers v Lord Chelwood (Deceased Executors of) [2012] EWCA Civ 1715 (19 December 2012)

Sayers v Lord Chelwood (Deceased Executors of) [2012] EWCA Civ 1715 (19 December 2012)

The judge applied the wrong test by describing the claimant's burden as 'particularly heavy' under section 33, but upon re-exercising the discretion, the Court of Appeal found that the prejudice to the defendants from the delay, including loss of evidence and insurance documentation, outweighed the prejudice to the claimant, and it was not equitable to disapply the limitation period.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 1715
Parties
Appellant: Clifford Sayers; First Respondent: Executors of Lord Chelwood (Deceased); Second Respondent: Lady Chelwood
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Section 33 Limitation Act 1980, Discretion to Disapply Limitation Period, Employer's Liability, Delay and Prejudice
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Limitation of Actions Section 33 Limitation Act 1980 Discretion to Disapply Limitation Period Employer's Liability Delay and Prejudice

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clifford Sayers

Appellant

Executors of Lord Chelwood (Deceased)

First Respondent

Lady Chelwood

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in the exercise of discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether the claimant bore a 'particularly heavy burden' under section 33
  3. 3 Whether the delay prejudiced the defendants such that the action should not proceed

Ratio Decidendi

The judge applied the wrong test by describing the claimant's burden as 'particularly heavy' under section 33, but upon re-exercising the discretion, the Court of Appeal found that the prejudice to the defendants from the delay, including loss of evidence and insurance documentation, outweighed the prejudice to the claimant, and it was not equitable to disapply the limitation period.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Order of the county court judge upheld