Richardson v Watson & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 1662 (06 December 2006)

Richardson v Watson & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 1662 (06 December 2006)

It is not an abuse of process for a claimant to discontinue an action after failing to give timely notice to the MIB and to commence a second action with proper notice, even if the second action is out of time. Following Horton v Sadler, the court has discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to allow the second action to proceed out of time. In this case, the balance of factors under section 33 favoured allowing the appellant's claim to proceed, as the MIB suffered no prejudice from the delay, and the claims on behalf of the children would proceed in any event.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1662
Parties
Appellant: Richardson; Respondent: Watson; Respondent: Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From County Court Judgment Striking Out Claim as Abuse of Process and Refusing Extension of Limitation Period
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Abuse of Process, Motor Insurance Bureau Agreements, Extension of Time Under Limitation Act 1980, Personal Injury Claims, Notice Requirements
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Insurance Law Limitation of Actions Abuse of Process Motor Insurance Bureau Agreements Extension of Time Under Limitation Act 1980 Personal Injury Claims +1 more

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

Parties

Richardson

Appellant

Watson

Respondent

Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From County Court Judgment Striking Out Claim as Abuse of Process and Refusing Extension of Limitation Period

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether commencing a second action after failure to give timely notice to MIB in the first action constitutes an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the court has power to extend the limitation period under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 after discontinuance of a first action commenced within time
  3. 3 Whether it is equitable to allow the appellant's action to proceed out of time

Ratio Decidendi

It is not an abuse of process for a claimant to discontinue an action after failing to give timely notice to the MIB and to commence a second action with proper notice, even if the second action is out of time. Following Horton v Sadler, the court has discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to allow the second action to proceed out of time. In this case, the balance of factors under section 33 favoured allowing the appellant's claim to proceed, as the MIB suffered no prejudice from the delay, and the claims on behalf of the children would proceed in any event.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The order striking out the appellant's action as an abuse of process is set aside.
  • The appellant's action is permitted to proceed out of time under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980.