Limitation Act 1963
Citation | 1963 c. 47 |
---|---|
Territorial extent |
|
Dates | |
Royal assent | 31 July 1963 |
Repealed | 1 May 1981 |
Other legislation | |
Repealed by | |
Status: Repealed | |
Text of statute as originally enacted |
The Limitation Act 1963 (c. 47) was an
The act allowed an injured party to bring a claim outside the normal statute of limitations period if he could show that he was not aware of the injuries himself until after the limitation period had expired and if he gained the permission of the court. After a series of problems emerged, including vagueness on a point even the House of Lords was unable to clarify and poor draftsmanship, the Act was repealed bit by bit during the 1970s, with the Limitation Act 1980 scrapping the last remaining sections.
Background
Before the passing of the 1963 Act, the only exceptions to the normal statute of limitations (three years after the events that caused the injury, as established by the Law Reform (Limitation of Actions, etc.) Act 1954) were if the claim was being brought for a case of mistake or fraud, in which case the statute of limitations was twelve months from when the claimant could reasonably have been expected to discover the fraud or mistake.[1] In Cartledge v E. Jopling & Sons Ltd[2] the claimant sued Jopling after he developed pneumoconiosis from working in the company's poorly ventilated steel mills.[3] The injuries were sustained in October 1950 but they were not discovered until 1956, and as a result the injured party had no cause of action.[4] Because the injuries had not been discovered until six years after they were caused, and the statute of limitations was three years after the injury itself, Cartledge was not legally allowed to bring a case.[4]
Cartledge pursued the claim anyway in an attempt to have the law changed, and decisions were made against him in both the
Act
The Act created exceptions to the normal
These provisions covered both Cartledge-like situations and cases where the injured party, while aware of his injuries, does not connect them to the true cause until more than three years after the injuries were sustained.[6] The act had a limited retrospective effect - it covered injuries that had happened before the Act came into force if an action had not been brought.[7] If a judgment had already been made in a case, the Act could not apply to it, meaning the Act actually had no effect on the Cartledge case itself.[7]
Problem and repeal
The main problem with the Act was whether or not the claimant had to know he had a method of action or not for the standard limitation period to apply.
References
Bibliography
- Dworkin, Gerald (March 1964). "Limitation Act, 1963". The Modern Law Review. 27 (2). ISSN 1468-2230.
- Jolowicz, J. A. (April 1964). "Limitation Act, 1963". Cambridge Law Journal. 22 (1). ISSN 0008-1973.
- Patten, Keith (July 2006). "Limitation periods in personal injury claims - justice obstructed?". Civil Justice Quarterly (25). ISSN 0261-9261.