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?

McGhie v British Telecommunications Plc, Court of Appeal, 18 January 2005

28 January 2005
The issues

Limitation – Proportionality – Section 33 Limitation Act 1980

The facts

The Claimant injured his back at work whilst working for the Defendant in 1988. Five years later he issued proceedings alleging negligence and breach of statutory duty. He issued the proceedings after having an operation for a prolapsed disc which made him considerably better and on hearing from a previous Manager, that he should have been sent on a training course and provided with special equipment when he was doing the job that caused his injury. The medical evidence indicated that the Claimant had a pre-existing history of back problems. The Defendant pleaded limitation and the matter was heard as a preliminary issue. The Judge exercised his discretion under Section 33 in the Claimant’s interest. The Judge had not applied the statutory test under Section 33 but had rather based his decision on the fact that the Claimant had been devoted to his job and had acted reasonably.

The Judge had referred to proportionality but had not evaluated the issue and no reference had been made to the balance of prejudice. The Claimant’s pleaded case on liability was based on hearsay and there was no evidence of what a prudent employer would have done in 1988 or any evidence of any training or special equipment would have avoided the accident. Taking into account both the modest nature of the claim and the balance of prejudice test, it would be wrong to exercise the discretion to allow the claim to proceed out of time.

Appeal allowed.

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