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

Parsonage v Fastway Steel Limited CA

26 November 2011
The issues

Limitation:- conscious exaggeration of injuries as relevant factor.

The facts

Defendant appealed from the decision of the Judge on a preliminary limitation issue.

On 29 August 1992, claimant was driver of a van involved in a multi-vehicle pile up. A livestock transporter stopped in the centre lane of the motorway and the defendants van collided with its rear. A third vehicle, a lorry, jack-knifed and hit the van. The claimant was the driver of the van. The claimant sued both the driver of the lorry that had hit him and his employers for providing him with a van with unroadworthy tyres. In March 1994 expert evidence was obtained that the van did not brake and the condition of the tyres was irrelevant. The claimant dropped his claim against his employer.
In October 1998 the claimant obtained further evidence from criminal proceedings brought to the effect that the van had skidded and the tyres were of poor quality and would have affected his ability to stop or slow down.

On 16 May 2000, the claimant therefore sued his employers the current defendants. The defendants pleaded limitation. The Judge found the relevant date of knowledge to be after the first expert evidence was obtained in March 1994. On receipt of that evidence the claimant should have obtained a second report. However the Judge extended time under Section 33.

The Defendant relied amongst other matters on the fact that the claimant had consciously exaggerated his injuries during the proceedings which fact the claimant had subsequently admitted.

The decision

1. The Judge had approached the matter on the basis that it was for the Court to decide that it was equitable to allow the action to proceed. He had not misdirected himself as to the burden of proof and to the extent to which it rested upon the claimant.

2. The main issue was as to whether the van had skidded and whether the claimant had applied brakes. That was a matter for the experts. Eyewitness evidence was of lessor importance.

3. The fact that the claim had subconsciously exaggerated his injuries was a relevant factor and the Judge could take it into account into exercising his discretion. In this case the Judge had concluded that the extensive medical evidence had not been effected by the claimants exaggerations.

4. The Judge’s exercise of discretion was one that could not be faulted.

Appeal dismissed.

focus on...

Legal updates

Noise-induced hearing loss claims – documentation and the expert engineer

Guest writer, Finch Consulting Senior Consultant Teli Chinelis applies his expertise in preparing engineering reports in relation to noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) claims to explain information that is required from the claimant and information that is required and is advisable to be retained by employers, in order to ensure that claims can be fairly represented.

View

Legal updates

SRA Standards and Regulations November 2019

On Monday 25 November the 2011 SRA Handbook is replaced by the 2019 SRA Standards and Regulations (often referred to as STARS).This is the 26th version of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors.

View

Legal updates

Contingent loss in negligence claims

Contingent loss is relevant to limitation; specifically, the date at which a claimant’s cause of action accrues for the purposes of a claim in the tort of negligence (as many claims against professional advisers are framed).

View

Legal updates

Legal and regulatory monthly update - September 2019

The latest update covering delegated authority, insurance product development, the senior insurance managers regime, data protection, operational control frameworks, Lloyds market, and horizon scanning.

View

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