Gallaher v Dauny [2001] JRC 121 (24 May 2001)

Gallaher v Dauny [2001] JRC 121 (24 May 2001)

The Defendant did not clearly and unambiguously waive or agree to extend the limitation period. The Plaintiff's claim is prescribed as proceedings were not validly commenced within the three-year limitation period. Admission of liability alone does not estop the Defendant from relying on prescription.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] JRC 121
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
24 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Strike Out Claim as Prescribed
Outcome
claim struck out as prescribed
Legal Topics
Limitation Period, Prescription, Estoppel, Admission of Liability, Personal Injury
Civil Procedure Tort Limitation Period Prescription Estoppel Admission of Liability Personal Injury

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Strike Out Claim as Prescribed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff's claim is prescribed under the three-year limitation period
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant is estopped from relying on prescription due to admission of liability

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant did not clearly and unambiguously waive or agree to extend the limitation period. The Plaintiff's claim is prescribed as proceedings were not validly commenced within the three-year limitation period. Admission of liability alone does not estop the Defendant from relying on prescription.

Court Disposition

claim struck out as prescribed

Orders

  • The order of justice is prescribed and is struck out.