Teague v Mersey Docks & Harbour Company & Ors

Teague v Mersey Docks & Harbour Company & Ors

The appellant had the requisite knowledge of significant injury attributable to his employment by August 1996, making the claim time-barred. The judge's findings were justified, the exclusion of supplementary expert evidence did not affect the outcome, and there was no error in the refusal to exercise discretion under section 33.

Parties
Appellant: Terence Teague; First Respondent: Mersey Docks & Harbour Company & Ors; Second Respondent: Charente Limited; Third Respondent: Thos & Jas Harrison Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Preliminary Issue Decision on Limitation
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Limitation Period, Date of Knowledge, Noise Induced Hearing Loss, Discretion Under Limitation Act Section 33
Tort Law Personal Injury Limitation of Actions Limitation Period Date of Knowledge Noise Induced Hearing Loss Discretion Under Limitation Act Section 33

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terence Teague

Appellant

Mersey Docks & Harbour Company & Ors

First Respondent

Charente Limited

Second Respondent

Thos & Jas Harrison Limited

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Preliminary Issue Decision on Limitation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim was time-barred under section 11 of the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether the appellant had the requisite knowledge under section 14 of the Limitation Act 1980 by August 1996
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in refusing to admit supplementary expert evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant had the requisite knowledge of significant injury attributable to his employment by August 1996, making the claim time-barred. The judge's findings were justified, the exclusion of supplementary expert evidence did not affect the outcome, and there was no error in the refusal to exercise discretion under section 33.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Application for permission to appeal refused