0370 270 6000

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

14 May 2003
The issues

Limitation.

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

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