Young v Downey

Young v Downey

The court found that the claim was brought outside the primary limitation period but exercised its discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to allow the claim to proceed, as the delay was excusable and no prejudice to the defendant was shown. On the evidence, particularly the fingerprint evidence, the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Sarah Jane Young; Defendant: John Anthony Downey
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Liability and Limitation Determination; Quantum Reserved
Outcome
Claim for liability established; quantum reserved
Legal Topics
Trespass to the Person, Intentional Infliction of Harm, Conspiracy to Injure, Limitation of Actions, Joint Tortfeasor Liability, Fatal Accidents Act Claims
Tort Law Personal Injury Civil Procedure Trespass to the Person Intentional Infliction of Harm Conspiracy to Injure Limitation of Actions Joint Tortfeasor Liability +1 more

Source-derived case record

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sarah Jane Young

Claimant

John Anthony Downey

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Liability and Limitation Determination; Quantum Reserved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim is time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to allow the claim to proceed
  3. 3 Whether the defendant was a joint tortfeasor responsible for the unlawful killing of the claimant’s father

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claim was brought outside the primary limitation period but exercised its discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to allow the claim to proceed, as the delay was excusable and no prejudice to the defendant was shown. On the evidence, particularly the fingerprint evidence, the court found on the balance of probabilities that the defendant was an active participant in the bombing and thus liable as a joint tortfeasor for the unlawful killing of the claimant’s father.

Court Disposition

Claim for liability established; quantum reserved

Orders

  • Limitation period disapplied under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980; claim allowed to proceed
  • Defendant found liable as joint tortfeasor for the unlawful killing of the claimant’s father