Limitation periods MCQs Flashcards
Chris Mathews, who is 29 years of age, was a keen rugby player. Nearly 3 years ago he seriously injured his neck when a scrum collapsed during a rugby match between Giants Rugby Football Club (“Giants RFC”) and Tigers Rugby Club. As a result, Chris suffered a great deal of pain and discomfort and his mobility was significantly reduced.
Chris has not been able to return to work as a PE teacher due to his injuries.
An independent review found that the playing conditions on the day of the match were unsafe and unplayable (the pitch at Giants RFC having been made that way by torrential rain and fungus problems). The review concluded that the game should have been postponed. However, on the day of the match, the President of Giants RFC – Dean Cross – insisted the game be played, even though this was clearly against League and insurance regulations due to the inappropriate conditions.
You consider that Chris has a valid personal injury claim against Giants RFC. The club has referred the matter to their own insurers, who have been in contact with your instructing solicitors indicating that Giants RFC dispute liability.
There has been a limited exchange of information between the parties. However, you form the view there has not yet been a sufficient exchange of information to enable each side to make an informed decision on liability, quantum and any settlement. Indeed, you are instructed there have been no settlement discussions.
Assume it is a Monday, and assume limitation expires on Friday of the same week.
Which ONE of the following options is the most appropriate initial advice to give Chris Matthews on limitation from the options below?
Issue the claim within the limitation period and then immediately apply for a stay of the claim in order to comply with the Pre-action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims after the issue of the claim.
Issue the claim within the limitation period and delay serving the claim for 7 days. In those 7 days, demand a settlement for the full sum claimed.
Comply with the Pre-action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims. If a settlement is not reached, issue the claim afterwards. Compliance with the Protocol will be sufficient to justify missing the limitation deadline.
Issue the claim within the limitation period and then serve the claim in order to show Giants RFC that Chris Matthews is serious about the claim.
Issue the claim within the limitation period and then immediately apply for a stay of the claim in order to comply with the Pre-action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims after the issue of the claim.
This is the most appropriate initial advice. Issuing the claim within the limitation period is absolutely essential, as by doing so Chris Matthews protects his position under the Limitation Act 1980. Applying for a stay enables the parties to attempt to resolve their dispute by following the Pre-action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims, albeit after issue of the claim. The Protocol encourages parties to exchange information so that they can negotiate from an informed position. Simply demanding the full sum claimed (or serving the claim) without any exchange of information is unlikely to lead to a settlement.
On 3 June 2019, on the day after her 16th birthday, Lucy saw her GP about a lump within her neck. Her GP thought this was probably a cyst which would disappear in its own time, but certainly nothing to worry about. As a result, Lucy was not given an ultrasound scan or referred to a consultant.
In early June 2020, Lucy felt pain again (for the first time since June 2019), so she consulted a specialist, Doctor Y, who diagnosed that the lump had grown and advised that an operation was necessary.
Doctor Y operated on Lucy in late June 2020, and removed what Doctor Y discovered to be a benign tumour. The operation caused Lucy pain, suffering, permanent scarring and time off work (she has a part-time job).
Lucy’s instructions are that she first began to suspect in June 2019 that her GP’s diagnosis had been careless and that, if her GP had dealt with the problem properly in June 2017, it would not have reached this more serious stage.
Lucy has only now instructed solicitors to issue a claim for negligence against her GP (no such claim having already been issued). The long delay is explained by her inability for a long time to face dealing with the matter due to the stress, her relatively young age and the fact that a previous solicitor she consulted was very unhelpful.
Lucy turned 18 years of age on 2 June 2020.
Please assume the date is 23 September 2022 regardless of the actual date of your workshop.
Which is the CORRECT advice to give Lucy?
Lucy’s claim is statute barred as she had only 3 years from June 2020 in which to bring her claim, and we are now September 2023.
Lucy’s claim is statute barred as she had only 3 years from June 2019 in which to bring her claim, and we are now September 2023.
Lucy has 3 years from the date of her 18th birthday in which to bring her claim.
In order to protect her position under the Limitation Act 1980, Lucy must bring her claim by no later than 2 June 2027.
Lucy has 3 years from the date of her 18th birthday in which to bring her claim.
Section 11 of the Limitation Act 1980 (under which the limitation period is 3 years) applies to any action for damages for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty “where the damages claimed by the [claimant] for the negligence, nuisance or breach of duty consist of or include damages in respect of personal injuries to the [claimant] or any other person”. Section 38(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 defines “personal injuries” as including any disease or impairment of a person’s physical or mental condition. Lucy’s professional negligence claim against her GP clearly counts as a personal injury claim.
As a child, time only starts to run from the date of Lucy’s 18th birthday. This is because Lucy is treated as being under a “disability” (as defined in section 38(2) the Limitation Act 1980) whilst a child. Lucy was a child until 2 June 2020 when she turned 18 years of age. Lucy has 3 years from the date of her 18th birthday in which to bring her claim against the GP: see sections 28(1), 28(6) and 38(2) of the Limitation Act 1980.
Which ONE of the following statements shows the WRONG limitation period for that specific category of case?
Contribution under Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 – 3 years.
Fatal accident claims – 3 years.
Personal injury claims – 3 years.
Action upon any judgment – 6 years.
Contribution under Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 – 3 years.
This is the answer you should be choosing. The limitation period for a contribution under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 is 2 years (not 3 years). See section 10 of the Limitation Act 1980.
Barrie enjoys driving in his sports car with his daughter, Andrea, who was born on 14 June 2006. They often drive on country lanes around Yorkshire. In September 2012, they were driving in Barrie’s sports car (which he solely owned) when Claire negligently hit them with her car. Neither Barrie nor Andrea was hurt but the sports car was destroyed. Barrie has been in very lengthy negotiations with Claire’s insurers and has now instructed solicitors to bring a claim against Claire for the value of the sports car (which is the only loss sustained). At one point, the insurers also lost the file which partly contributes to the delay.
In your judgment, which ONE of the following is the CORRECT advice to give to Barrie from the options below?
Time does not start to run for Andrea until her 18th birthday.
The claim was statute barred in September 2015.
The claim is statute barred but Barrie can apply to the court to exclude the evidence.
The claim was statute barred in September 2018.
The claim was statute barred in September 2018.
Barrie’s claim is in tort and is to recover for property damage. The time limit is 6 years for property damage. See section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980. There is no chance of excluding the limitation period under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 because section 33 only relates to personal injury and fatal accident claims. Andrea’s age is irrelevant: Andrea does not have a claim; Barrie solely owned the car.
Question 1
A man, who owns a florist business, entered into an oral contract on 16 January with a
company that grows and sells flowers. He submits that the contract contained an express
term the flowers would be delivered on 8 February with time being of the essence. The
reason for this provision was that the flowers were required for the lucrative Valentine’s Day
market on 14 February. The flowers failed to arrive until 17 February and most remained
unsold. The company disputes such a term was agreed and neither party has a written note
that time was of the essence.
Which of the following statements best describes the advice the solicitor should give to
the man concerning the commencement of proceedings?
A There is no hurry to issue proceedings as the limitation period does not expire for three
years from 16 January.
B The limitation period runs from the date of breach of the contract, this being the date of
delivery of the flowers on 17 February.
C When issuing proceedings, it does not matter whether the defendant is sued in their
company name or as individual directors.
D There is no need to look into the defendant’s finances until judgment has been
obtained.
E The prospects of the man succeeding in his claim are likely to be affected by his failure
to record in writing that a specified delivery date was agreed and that time was of the
essence.
Answer
Option E is correct. To succeed in a breach of contract claim, the man must establish that a
contract existed, a term was breached and this caused his losses. The crucial issue will be
whether a delivery date was specified and whether time was of the essence in relation to
the delivery of the flowers. The lack of written evidence to support the man means that the
court will have to decide this based upon conflicting oral evidence.
Option A is wrong because, as this is a contract claim, the man has six years from the date
when the cause of action accrued to commence proceedings. Option B is also wrong as
the limitation period runs from the day after the breach of contract which, in this case, is 8
February when delivery was not made in accordance with the terms of the contract; it does
not run from the date of the actual delivery on 17 February.
Option C is wrong because proceedings must be issued in the correct name of the
defendant and, in this instance, the company is a separate legal entity to the individual
directors. Option D is not the best advice to give a client as there is little point in winning a
claim only to discover that the defendant is insolvent or otherwise cannot pay the damages
and costs awarded.
Question 2
A company client seeks advice in relation to a contract for the sale of a carpet to a hotel.
The customer strongly disputes payment on the basis that the carpet supplied did not match
the sample provided. The client instructs their solicitor to issue proceedings against the
customer.
Which of the following best describes the approach that should be taken by the client?
A The client may issue proceedings against the customer immediately with confidence
that sanctions will not be imposed.
B As the only purpose of the pre- action protocols is to assist the parties in settling cases
without litigation, the client need not comply as agreement is unlikely.
C Unless the limitation period is about to expire, the client should write to the customer
with concise details of the claim and disclose key documents.
D The client may choose whether to follow a pre- action protocol or whether to rely upon
the Practice Direction for Pre- Action Conduct.
E When trying to resolve matters, all possible steps should be taken by the client to effect
this but only proportionate costs need be incurred.
Answer
Option C is correct. According to the Practice Direction on Pre- Action Conduct and Protocols,
these are the steps with which the claimant should usually comply before issuing a claim.
Option A is wrong as there are a number of sanctions that the court could impose if a party
fails to comply with the Practice Direction or a relevant pre- action protocol. These include
penalties relating to costs and interest. Option B is wrong as assisting the parties in settling
cases without litigation is not the ‘only’ purpose of the protocols and the parties should comply
even if agreement seems unlikely.
Option D is wrong as the client cannot choose which route to take. The PDPAC only applies
if there is no specific protocol in relation to the particular dispute. Option E is also wrong
as the client is required to take ‘reasonable and proportionate steps’ to try and resolve the
matter, not ‘all’ steps, although it is correct that the costs incurred in doing so should be
proportionate.
A girl who turned 14 on 10 April 2020 suffered lacerations to her legs in a car accident on 28 May 2020. The defendant (who was the driver of the car) provided her name, address, contact details and insurer’s details at the time of the accident. The defendant has admitted liability in pre-action correspondence but, as yet, the parties have not reached an agreement in relation to quantum.
By when must proceedings be issued to avoid any dispute in relation to limitation?
Select one alternative:
28 May 2023
10 April 2030
28 May 2026
10 April 2027
10 April 2024
10 April 2027
If a person is under a disability at the time that the cause of action accrued, the limitation period starts to run from when the disability ends and is 3 years in relation to personal injury. A person is under a disability whilst they are a minor – under 18. Penny ceases to be under a disability on her 18th birthday, i.e. on 10 April 2024. The 3 years starts to run then, and therefore she must commence the claim by 10 April 2027.
You act on behalf of James Sampson, a seventeen-year old boy who was injured in a road traffic accident one month after passing his driving test. At around 3pm on 26 November 2019, James was driving back from a friend’s house along the A35 when a car suddenly swerved onto his side of the road. The cars collided head on. The driver of the other car, Sarah Collings, suffered relatively minor injuries. Unfortunately, your client, James, suffered serious injuries. He was cut from the car and taken via air ambulance to the nearest hospital. He underwent a major operation on his spine, but doctors were unable to repair the damage to his spinal cord. He remained in hospital on a rehabilitation ward for several months. He has now been discharged but requires ongoing rehabilitation, is currently wheelchair-bound and requires assistance with activities of daily living. James has been warned that his prognosis is poor. Although he remembers very little about the accident, the doctors have put this down to shock. James did not sustain a head injury at the time of the collision and does not lack mental capacity. Now that James is out of hospital, he has focused his mind on his ongoing care and living costs and the possibility of bringing a claim against Sarah Collings. You are advising James in the presence of his mother, Mrs Sampson. Mrs Sampson is very anxious that James receives the best treatment and care as she is unable to support him financially. Given that James was in hospital for so long, Mrs Sampson is especially concerned that we may be running out of time to bring any claim. James was born on 15 October 2002.
What would you advise Mrs Sampson is the last day that James’s claim could be issued?
15 October 2023.
26 November 2025.
26 November 2022.
15 October 2026.
15 October 2023.
This is correct. James will turn 18 years’ old on 15 October 2020 and the limitation period will run from then. (Please see s11(4) and s28 Limitation Act 1980)
