Delay

Corbin v Penfold Metallising Co Ltd (CA TLR 2 May)

In March 1993 a consultant chest specialist advised the claimant that he had an industrial disease. In September 1993 the claimant instructed his solicitors who did not issue a writ for damages for negligence and/or breach of statutory duty in August 1996. The claimant’s knowledge of his injury for the purposes of s14 of the Limitation Act 1980 was after he received the consultant’s opinion in March 1993 and therefore the limitation period expired in March 1996. The claimant’s case against the defendant was therefore statute barred unless the court exercised its discretion under s33 of the Act. The delay of five-and-a-half months between receiving the consultant’s opinion and instructing solicitors had not added to any detriment otherwise suffered by the defendant. The subsequent delay was entirely attributable to the solicitors; the claimant had done what he might be expected to do, he had gone to solicitors who were apparently efficient and responsible in that area of work and had left them to get on with it. The claimant had acted diligently and caused no delay unless his solicitors’ faults were to be attributed to him. There was no rule of law that the faults of lawyers were to be visited on their clients in the area of limitation. The claimant had acted promptly and reasonably once on notice and might have a strong claim which he ought to be able to pursue. Accordingly the court exercised its discretion under s33 to extend the limitation period.