0370 270 6000

Adams v Bracknell Forest Borough Council, Court of Appeal, 6 May 2003

14 May 2003
The issues

Limitation – dyslexia.

The facts

The Claimant had a claim for damages in respect of a failure of the Local Education Authority to provide appropriate education in respect of schools he had attended between 1977 and 1988. The Claimant alleged he had severe dyslexia. Proceedings were issued on the 25th June 2002. The Defendant pleaded limitation. The matter came before the Judge on a preliminary issue.

The Defendant argued that he had not been aware of his condition until 1999, when he had spoken on a social occasion to someone who was an Educational Psychologist. After that, he was diagnosed with severe dyslexia.

The Judge found that the Claimant had been taught at school as a normal child and that he had always managed to conceal his learning problems. He found that the Claimant knew that he suffered from the effects of his problems with reading and writing, but that he did not know whose fault it was until 1999. He found that a reasonable person with undiagnosed dyslexia could not reasonably be expected to seek help for the problems suffered or to conclude himself why he was suffering from them. The Judge therefore found in favour of the Claimant on the issue of date of knowledge.

The Defendant appealed.

The decision

1. The Court of Appeal would not interfere with the Judge’s findings on actual knowledge.

2. The fact that the Claimant could not read and write did not link the injury with the acts and admissions of the Defendant. There were many reasons why the Defendant could not have achieved what he considered he should have done. As to constructive knowledge, the Judge had found that a reasonable person with undiagnosed dyslexia was unlikely to seek help for his problems. Each case however was dependant upon its own facts and each Claimant’s state of knowledge was not the same. The Court was entitled to take into account the effects of inhibitions upon the Claimant when coming to its decision as to the reasonableness of his conduct. The Judge had been entitled to conclude that this Claimant with undiagnosed dyslexia was unlikely to seek help for his problems and that he did not have knowledge until 1999.

Appeal dismissed.

Comments

Now under Appeal to the House of Lords

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.

View

Blogs

Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.

View

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.

View

Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.

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