Public Servs. Cttee. v Maynard [1996] JLR 343 (11 December 1996)
- Citation
- [1996] JLR 343
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Limitation of Actions / Appellate
More details
- Posture
- Limitation of Actions / Appellate
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The limitation period is suspended in cases of latent injury where the plaintiff could not have known of the injury, and the maxim contra non valentem agere nulla currit praescriptio applies to both contract and tort actions.
Court disposition
Limitation period suspended in cases of latent injury; maxim applies to contract and tort.
02
Material facts
Parties
Public Services Committee
PlaintiffMaynard
Defendant03
Procedural history
Posture
Limitation of Actions / Appellate
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the limitation period is suspended in cases of latent injury where the plaintiff could not have known of the injury
- 02
Whether the maxim contra non valentem agere nulla currit praescriptio applies to contract and tort actions
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Plaintiff argued that the limitation period should be suspended due to latent injury (asbestosis) which could not have been known.
- Respondent
- Defendant contended that mere ignorance of the condition is insufficient to suspend the limitation period.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
maxim contra non valentem agere nulla currit praescriptio
Limitation period may be suspended against a plaintiff with latent injury of which they could not know.
- 02
Legal principle 2
Mere ignorance of condition is insufficient, but may be part of impediment leading to operation of the maxim.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The limitation period is suspended in cases of latent injury where the plaintiff could not have known of the injury, and the maxim contra non valentem agere nulla currit praescriptio applies to both contract and tort actions.
Obiter and limits
- Mere ignorance of the condition is not enough to suspend the limitation period, but may contribute to the impediment.
Court disposition
Limitation period suspended in cases of latent injury; maxim applies to contract and tort.
Source and reliance status
Official court record
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court record
Judgment
[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [
DONATE ] Jersey Law Reports You are here:
BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Law Reports >> Public Servs. Cttee. v Maynard [1996] JLR 343 (11 December 1996) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/1996/JLR960343.html Cite as: [1996] JLR 343 [ New search ] [ Help ] Public Servs. Cttee. v Maynard 1996 JLR 343 (11 December 1996) Limitation of Actions - running of time - suspension of limitation period - latent damage-prescription suspended against plaintiff with latent injury of which could not know, e.g. asbestosis-although mere ignorance of condition insufficient, may be part of impediment leading to operation of maxim contra non valentem agere nulla currit praescriptio-maxim applies to both contract and tort actions The document you wish to view is available to registered users or can be purchased as a PDF. To purchase this document in PDF format or alternatively to Register to purchase membership go to the Jersey Law website via this link: 1996 JLR 343 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/1996/JLR960343.html
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.