0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

MaMarnus v Mannings Marine Limited, Court of Appeal

8 November 2001
The issues

Vibration white finger – limitation

The facts

The Claimant appealed from the Recorder’s decision dismissing the appellants claim for personal injuries of the Trial of the preliminary issue on limitation.

He had vibration white finger.

Since 1968 he worked in the ship building industry. In June 1989 he worked for Mannings Marine Limited for 12 days and for another 14 days between 1989 and 1990. In September 1992 he presented a claim to the DSS for industrial disabilities benefit for a prescribed disease. i.e. VWF. In his form he mentioned the Defendant as a named employer. Because his application fell under the Trade Union and Employers Insurers Scheme it was handled through ADR and not Litigation. The Insurers to the Defendant concluded that it was not reasonable for him to claim for his employment with this Defendant as he had been employed for such a short time. In May 1993 he was told by a consultant who saw him for the purposes of his application that if he worked further he would become significantly worse.

He continued to work. He worked for the Defendant again which in August 1993 to the end of November 1999. Whilst previously he had suffered VWF in two fingers in the left hand by now he suffered in all fingers and both thumbs. On the 2 December 1999 he issued proceedings.

The Judge found the relevant date of knowledge for the purposes of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 was September 1992 at the latest. This was when he had made his application to the DSS and when he had named the Defendant as one of the named employers. The Judge refused to exercise his discretion to disapply under Section 33 of the Act and dismissed the claim.

The decision

1. The Claimants claim was not for the injury which he suffered in the period before 1993, but the exacerbation of the claim since then.

2. Section 14.1 of the 1980 Act should be read alongside Section 11. When Section 14 referred to “the injury in question” it meant the injury for which the action was brought

3. He should have asked at what date the Claimant knew the exacerbated injury was significant. He had failed to make any findings as to that. Accordingly Appeal allowed and limitation to be remitted to be considered at the Trial of the main claim.

focus on...

Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


Legal updates

Coronavirus (COVID-19) insurance considerations

With instances of COVID-19 rapidly increasing throughout the UK, many businesses are considering the options available to limit staff and customer exposure to Coronavirus.


Legal updates

Insurance annual review 2019-2020

Welcome to our review of 2019 as we look ahead to what is on the horizon for the insurance sector in 2020.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up