Kimathi & Ors v Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2016] EWHC 600 (QB) (18 March 2016)

Kimathi & Ors v Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2016] EWHC 600 (QB) (18 March 2016)

It would not be just or in accordance with the overriding objective to try limitation, specifically section 33 Limitation Act 1980, as a preliminary issue in this highly unusual group litigation, given the risks of delay, increased costs, prejudice to elderly witnesses, and potential for injustice if appeals arise. However, issues relating to the pre-1954 time bar, section 11, section 14, and section 32 Limitation Act 1980 should be tried as preliminary issues after the test Claimants have given evidence.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 600
Parties
Claimant: Eloise Mukami Kimathi & Ors; Defendant: Foreign & Commonwealth Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Group Litigation / Interlocutory Application Ruling on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Partially allowed
Legal Topics
Limitation, Preliminary Issues, Case Management, Double Actionability, Deliberate Concealment
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Tort Limitation Preliminary Issues Case Management Double Actionability Deliberate Concealment

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eloise Mukami Kimathi & Ors

Claimant

Foreign & Commonwealth Office

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Group Litigation / Interlocutory Application Ruling on Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether limitation and double actionability should be determined as preliminary issues
  2. 2 Whether section 33 Limitation Act 1980 should be tried as a preliminary issue

Ratio Decidendi

It would not be just or in accordance with the overriding objective to try limitation, specifically section 33 Limitation Act 1980, as a preliminary issue in this highly unusual group litigation, given the risks of delay, increased costs, prejudice to elderly witnesses, and potential for injustice if appeals arise. However, issues relating to the pre-1954 time bar, section 11, section 14, and section 32 Limitation Act 1980 should be tried as preliminary issues after the test Claimants have given evidence.

Court Disposition

Partially allowed

Orders

  • Issues relating to the pre-1954 time bar, section 11 and section 14 Limitation Act 1980, and section 32 Limitation Act 1980 to be tried as preliminary issues after the test Claimants have given evidence.
  • Application for section 33 Limitation Act 1980 to be tried as a preliminary issue is refused.