LAW

Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Davis v City and Hackney HA (1991)
Core Principle: Establishes the standard for determining when a plaintiff possesses "knowledge" of the cause of their damage under the Limitation Act 1980, including both actual and constructive knowledge, particularly in cases involving plaintiffs with disabilities.
I. Facts of the Case:
  • Plaintiff born with severe physical disabilities.
  • At age 17, he inquired about the cause of his disability; mother suggested a possible mishandled delivery but discouraged a claim.
  • At age 22, after leaving home and consulting with a law student, he sought legal advice.
  • Over one year later, a medical report was obtained.
  • A writ was issued five months after the medical report, alleging disabilities stemmed from an Ovametrin injection administered to his mother.
  • Defendants argued the claim was time-barred.
II. Legal Issue(s):
  • When did the plaintiff acquire "knowledge" of the cause of his disability for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980?
  • Could the plaintiff be fixed with constructive knowledge at an earlier date?
III. Court Decision (High Court):
  • The claim was not statute-barred.
  • Plaintiff's knowledge (s 11(4)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980) arose when the contents of the medical report were communicated to him.
  • The plaintiff’s disabilities meant that he had not been unreasonable in failing to seek legal advice any earlier.
  • He could not be fixed with constructive knowledge at any earlier date under s 14(3).
IV. Key Legal Concepts and Sections of the Limitation Act 1980:
  • s 11(4)(b): Deals with the date of knowledge for the purposes of limitation periods in personal injury claims. (Not explicitly quoted in provided text, but relevant context).
  • s 14(3): Constructive Knowledge. Defines what constitutes "knowledge" for the purposes of the Act, including knowledge a person might reasonably have been expected to acquire.
    • (a) from facts observable or ascertainable by him; or
    • (b) from facts ascertainable by him with the help of medical or other appropriate expert advice which it is reasonable for him to seek;
      • Exception: A person is not fixed with knowledge ascertainable only with expert advice if they have taken all reasonable steps to obtain (and act on) that advice.
V. Jowitt J's Statement - Standard for Constructive Knowledge
  • The test under s 14(3) is objective, but it is applied to the specific plaintiff, considering:
    • Their disability
    • Age
    • Circumstances
    • Difficulties faced
VI. Significance/Commentary:
  • Davis clarifies that the "reasonable person" standard for constructive knowledge under s 14(3) is not a purely abstract one.
  • The court must consider the plaintiff's individual characteristics and circumstances, especially disabilities, when determining what they might reasonably have been expected to know or discover.
  • This case highlights the court's willingness to take a flexible approach when applying the Limitation Act, particularly in cases involving vulnerable plaintiffs.
  • The case emphasizes the importance of obtaining expert advice in complex cases and protects plaintiffs who have taken reasonable steps to do so.



Picture
0 Comments

Author

Learn the fact about law