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

Forgotten your password?

Skerratt v Linfax Limited, Court of Appeal, 6 May 2003

14 May 2003
The issues


The facts

The Claimant had had an accident at the Defendant’s Go Kart track on the 4th April 1997. In November 2001 he was told by a Solicitor (acting for another person injured at the same track) that he might have a claim. The Claimant had signed a form agreeing that in taking a ride on the track he was doing so at his own risk. He issued proceedings on the 15th January 2002. The Defendant pleaded limitation. The matter came before the District Judge who found that there had been no deliberate concealment of material facts by the Defendant and that the Claimant being an intelligent and articulate man could have found out that he had a claim had he consulted lawyers. It was not therefore appropriate to exercise the discretion under Section 33. The District Judge also found that the Defendant would be prejudiced by facing a claim 5 years after the accident. The Claimant appealed.

The decision

1. Matters relating to concealment had taken place before the accident.

2. The law relating to concealment (Section 32(i)(b)) had to be narrowly construed and the District Judge was right to find that there had been no relevant concealment.

3. Even if the Claimant honestly believed he had no cause of action until he was told, if there was blame to be attached to him then that was a relevant consideration for the Court to consider in deciding whether to exercise the discretion. The District Judge was entitled to come to the view he had reached.

Appeal dismissed.

Focus on...

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.


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.


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.


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