header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
09 March 2007 / Colin Moore , Paula Jefferson
Issue: 7263 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Time for a change

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Paula Jefferson and Colin Moore uncover some of the limitations of the Limitation Act 1980

It has long been appreciated that a claimant should not have an indefinite period in which to bring a civil claim. Memories will fade and evidence will be lost until it becomes inequitable, if not impossible, for a fair trial to proceed. It is also undesirable for potential defendants, and their insurers to remain in limbo, anticipating claims. These factors were among the precursors to the legislative framework, enacted in the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980), which prescribes the time limits for claimants to issue proceedings in civil claims.

Negligence, nuisance and breach of statutory duty

For personal injury claims arising from negligence, nuisance or breach of statutory duty, s 11 of LA 1980 sets a three-year time limit from the claimant’s ‘date of knowledge’ in which to issue proceedings. Date of know­ledge is defined as the date on which the claimant first knew:

  • that the injury was significant;
  • that the injury was caused by an
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll