Hallam-Eames and Others v Merrett and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir Thomas Bingham MR,Hoffmann,Saville L JJ |
| Judgment Date | 16 June 1995 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 16 June 1995 |
Court of Appeal
Before Sir Thomas Bingham, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Hoffmann and Lord Justice Saville
Limitation of actions - negligence - causally relevant facts - knowledge starts time running
Where a plaintiff sought to rely on the extended limitation period provided by section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980, as inserted by the Latent Damage Act 1986, he was required, within the meaning of section 14A(8)(a), to have knowledge of those facts which were causally relevant for the purposes of an allegation of negligence.
Knowledge merely that the relevant damage had been caused by an act or omission of the defendant was insufficient to start time running against the plaintiff.
The Court of Appeal so held when allowing an appeal by William Hallam-Eames and other plaintiff names at Lloyd's from Mr Justice Gatehouse who had made declarations on summonses issued by the defendants, Merrett Syndicates Ltd, and other specified agencies, Mr Stephen Merrett and Ernst & Whinney, under Order 14A of the Rules of the Supreme Court that certain claims in tort arising out of the plaintiff's losses as members of Syndicates 418/417 were statute barred.
The claims related to:
1 Certain run-off policies written allegedly negligently between 1978 and 1983 reinsuring other Lloyd's syndicates against their outstanding and future liabilities thereby exposing the plaintiffs to enormous potential liabilities, when, as it was asserted, the underwriter did not have the material on which to form any reasonable view of what they would be;
2 Reinsurance to close (RITC) contracts by which the accounts for the years 1979 to 1984 were closed by the outstanding liabilities being reinsured by syndicate members for the succeeding year. It was asserted that the underwriters did not have the material on which to make any rational assessment of the potential liabilities of the year being closed and that the auditors were negligent in certifying that the accounts on which the RITCs were based reflected a true and fair view of the syndicates' incurred but not reported liabilities.
Mr Anthony Boswood, QC and Mr Brian Doctor for the plaintiffs; Mr Christopher Clarke, QC and Mr Mark Howard for Ernst & Whinney; Mr Roger Toulson, QC and Mr Colin Edelman for the members' agents; Mr Anthony Temple, QC, Mr John Rowland and Mr Aidan Christie for the Merrett defendants.
LORD JUSTICE HOFFMANN...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gough v Neary & Cronin
...(PERSONAL INJURIES) ACT 1948 (UK) S14(1)(B) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (AMDT) ACT 1991 S2(1)(C) HALLAM-EAMES V MERRETT SYNDICATES LTD 1996 7 MED LR 122 SMITH HOGG & CO LTD V BLACK SEA & BALTIC GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD 1940 AC 997 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ACT 1957 S11 HEGARTY V O'LOUGHRAN 1990 1 ......
-
Haward and Others v Fawcetts (A Firm) and Another
...not know her injury was attributable to them. I agree with the observations to this effect made by the Court of Appeal in Hallam-Eames v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [2001] Lloyd's Rep PN 178, 15 In many cases the distinction between facts (relevant) and the legal consequence of facts (irrelevan......
-
O'Sullivan v Ireland, the Attorney General
...which is alleged to constitute negligence […]’. As was pointed out by Hoffman L.J. in Hallam-Eames v. Merrett Syndicates Ltd. (No. 1) [1996] 7 Med. L.R. 122, the section does not say attributable to an act of the defendant but rather, using the definitive article, refers to the act or omiss......
-
Jake Pierce v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council
...on the basis of the law as it stands at the moment: see e.g. KR and others v Bryn Alyn Community Holdings [2003] EWCA Civ 85; Hallam-Eames v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 7 Med LR 122; Dobbie v Medway Health Authority [1994] 1 WLR 1234. 88 In order to plead a case against the Defendant, the......