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?

Aer Lingus Plc v Gildacroft Ltd & Sentinal Lifts Ltd, Queen's Bench Division, 24th June 2004

25 July 2005
The issues

Limitation – Indemnity – Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 – Whether Time For Claiming Contribution Runs From Judgment On Liability Or Judgment On Quantum

The facts

Mr Smyth, an employee of Aer Lingus, had an accident when his left arm was trapped in a lift which had malfunctioned. He sued Aer Lingus and on 9th May 2001 a consent Judgment was entered on the issue of liability against Aer Lingus.

In September 2003 the claim was settled for £490,000.00. On 4th February 2004 Aer Lingus started contribution proceedings against Gildacroft claiming an indemnity under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978.

Gildacroft pleaded that the claim was statute barred.

The decision

The Limitation Act Section 10 provided for a 2 year period in which a claim under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 could be brought. The date from which that period ran was the date from which the wrongdoer claiming contribution was “held liable in respect to that damage”. The issue before the Court was whether the relevant Judgment was a Judgment on liability or the Judgment on quantum.

Giving the words “held liable in respect of that damage by” their natural meaning, the relevant judgment was that on liability. Consequently the proceedings for contribution were stature barred.

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.

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

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.

View

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.

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