Crocker v British Coal Corporation
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 July 1995 |
| Date | 05 July 1995 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Limitation of actions - personal injuries - burden of proof
When deciding whether a personal injuries action was time-barred under section 11 of the Limitation Act 1980, the burden of proof rested throughout on the plaintiff, whether the issue was when the cause of action accrued or when the plaintiff first had knowledge of the facts in the sense identified in section 14 of that Act.
Mr Justice Mance so held in the Queen's Bench Division in a reserved judgment on June 7, dismissing the action of the plaintiff, Mrs Christine Marie Crocker, for damages for psychiatric injury which she alleged occurred as a result of witnessing the Aberfan tip disaster of October 21, 1966, on the ground that her action was time-barred.
HIS LORDSHIP said, that the evidence showed that the plaintiff had knowledge of the facts for the purposes of sections 11 and 14 in about 1978 or 1979; the writ was issued in September 1990.
His Lordship went on to say that once it was established that Mrs Crocker had sufficient knowledge for the purposes of sections...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
KR and Others v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd ((in Liquidation)) and another
...of the injury within section 14(1) and (2), but possibly not as to constructive knowledge under section 14(3); see Crocker v. British Coal Corporation (1995) 29 BMLR159, per Mance J; and Parry v.Clwyd Health Authority [1997] PIQR P1, per Colman 50 Accordingly, we consider that the Judge er......
-
AB & Others v Ministry of Defence
...issue of burden of proof in these cases was fully, and in my view correctly, examined by Mance J in Crocker v British Coal Corporation (1995) 29 BMLR 159, 169–173). So in practice the parties tend to join issue on actual knowledge, and judges to reach a conclusion on that issue, with constr......
-
Lucretia Rolle v The Airport Authority
...considered Cressey v E Timm & Son Ltd and another; (Practice Note) [2005] 1 WLR 3926 considered Crocker v British Coal Corporation (1996) 29 BMLR 159 considered Girten v. Andreu [1998] BHS J. No. 164 considered Greehalgh v Mallard [1947] 2 ALL ER 255 considered Henderson v Henderson [1843......
-
Whiston v London Strategic Health Authority
...in relation to constructive knowledge. My attention was drawn in this context to Nash v Eli Lilly & Co [1993] 1 WLR 782, 796; Crocker v British Coal Corp [1996] 29 BMLR 159, 172–3 and 175; and Furniss v Firth Brown Tools Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 182. I was invited to follow the reasoning of Manc......