A v Hoare

A v Hoare

The court exercised its discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the limitation period, finding that the claimant's delay was reasonable and justified due to the defendant's impecuniosity, which was a direct result of the tort. The seriousness of the underlying wrong, the absence of dispute as to liability, the claimant's prompt action upon the defendant's change in financial circumstances, and the ability to address the psychiatric injury at trial outweighed the prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay.

Parties
Claimant: A; Defendant: Iorworth Hoare
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Exercise of Discretion Under Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 After Remittal From House of Lords
Outcome
Application granted; limitation period disapplied.
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Assault and Battery, Sexual Assault, Discretion to Disapply Limitation Period, Impecuniosity of Defendant
Tort Law Personal Injury Limitation of Actions Assault and Battery Sexual Assault Discretion to Disapply Limitation Period Impecuniosity of Defendant

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 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Claimant

Iorworth Hoare

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Exercise of Discretion Under Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 After Remittal From House of Lords

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise its discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the limitation period for a personal injury claim arising from sexual assault where the claim was brought many years after the event due to the defendant's impecuniosity.

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the limitation period, finding that the claimant's delay was reasonable and justified due to the defendant's impecuniosity, which was a direct result of the tort. The seriousness of the underlying wrong, the absence of dispute as to liability, the claimant's prompt action upon the defendant's change in financial circumstances, and the ability to address the psychiatric injury at trial outweighed the prejudice to the defendant caused by the delay.

Court Disposition

Application granted; limitation period disapplied.

Orders

  • The limitation period is disapplied under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980.
  • The claimant is entitled to pursue her claim against the defendant.