0370 270 6000

Rowe v Kingston Upon Hull City Council and another, Court of Appeal, 25 July 2003

29 July 2003
The issues

Limitation – Dyslexia – date of knowledge.

The facts

The Claimant attended schools for which the two Defendants were responsible between 1979 and 1991. In March 1991 he was diagnosed with Dyslexia by a private Educational Psychologist. The Claimant was 18 on the 2nd October 1992. Limitation therefore ran from that date. He issued proceedings in September 1998. The Defendant pleaded limitation. The Judge found that the Claimant had known he was Dyslexic before 18 but that he did not know he had suffered a significant injury until the decision in Phelps v Hillingdon in 2000. The Defendants appealed.

The decision

1. Phelps v Hillingdon held an injury could include a failure to mitigate adverse consequences. By the time the Claimant was 18 he knew he was Dyslexic and that he could have been helped but had not been. That amounted to injury in law whether or not the Claimant knew that that was what it could be called.
2. The Claimant could have brought an action regardless of the decision in Phelps. The Judge was wrong to hold that the Claimant did not know he had suffered significant injury until that decision. He had the requisite knowledge at his 18th birthday and the 3 year limitation period ran from that date.

3. As to the discretion – the Defendants would have difficulties in tracing teachers who could remember the Claimant. It was irrelevant that the same difficulties had to have been faced if the action had been brought within the primary limitation period. There was little chance of a fair trial and the Claimant had failed to discharge the burden under s.33. The Court of Appeal would not exercise its discretion. Appeal allowed.

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.



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.


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.


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