- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Headford v Bristol and District HA (1995)
Core Principle: The limitation period for bringing a negligence claim does not begin if the plaintiff lacks legal competence due to disability.
I. Facts of the Case:
Core Principle: The limitation period for bringing a negligence claim does not begin if the plaintiff lacks legal competence due to disability.
I. Facts of the Case:
- Plaintiff sued for negligence due to a surgery 28 years prior, resulting in severe mental disability.
- Initial Judge: Delay by carers was unreasonable, prejudicial, and an abuse of process.
- Plaintiff appealed.
- Appeal Allowed.
- Section 28 of the Limitation Act 1980 does NOT consider 'prejudice'.
- The act imposes no restrictions on the limitation period for plaintiffs who remain disabled.
- Plaintiff, remaining disabled, was NOT time-barred and could bring proceedings.
- Section 28 (1):
- If a person is under a disability when a right of action accrues, the action can be brought within 6 years of ceasing to be under a disability or death (whichever occurs first), even if the standard limitation period has expired.
- Section 28 (6):
- For actions under Section 11 (personal injury) or 12(2), substitute "three years" for "six years" in subsection (1).
- Section 38 (2):
- Defines "disability" as being an infant or of "unsound mind".
- This case highlights the importance of considering a plaintiff's legal competence when determining limitation periods.
- Disability, as defined by the Act, effectively pauses the limitation period.
- Healthcare providers should be aware that claims can be brought many years after the event if the claimant was under a disability when the cause of action accrued and remains so.
0 Comments