Carr v Panel Products (Kimpton) Ltd

Carr v Panel Products (Kimpton) Ltd

The claim was statute barred as the claimant had actual or constructive knowledge of his injury and its attribution to his employment by 2007/2008, and the claim was issued outside the limitation period. The judge properly exercised his discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, considering all relevant factors, including prejudice to the defendant due to the loss of evidence and witnesses, and did not err in his approach to costs or hearing procedure.

Parties
Appellant: David William Carr; Respondent: Panel Products (Kimpton) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment Dismissing Claim as Statute Barred
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Limitation Periods, Discretion to Disapply Limitation, Noise Induced Hearing Loss, Employer's Liability
Tort Limitation of Actions Personal Injury Limitation Periods Discretion to Disapply Limitation Noise Induced Hearing Loss Employer's Liability

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

Parties

David William Carr

Appellant

Panel Products (Kimpton) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment Dismissing Claim as Statute Barred

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim was statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in finding actual or constructive knowledge for limitation purposes
  3. 3 Whether the judge properly exercised discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was statute barred as the claimant had actual or constructive knowledge of his injury and its attribution to his employment by 2007/2008, and the claim was issued outside the limitation period. The judge properly exercised his discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, considering all relevant factors, including prejudice to the defendant due to the loss of evidence and witnesses, and did not err in his approach to costs or hearing procedure.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Both appeals dismissed
  • Costs to be assessed