Limitation Act 1963
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1964.tb01022.x |
| Published date | 01 March 1964 |
| Author | Gerald Dworkin |
| Date | 01 March 1964 |
STATUTES
LIMITATION
ACT,
1968
Zntroduction
IF,
in England, we had an efficient law revision system, one method
of changing law would be to appoint
a
committee to examine an
unsatisfactory legal situation disclosed by the House
of
Lords, and
then to implement without delay the recommendations of the com-
mittee by legislation. In England this system is all too rare; many
unsatisfactory laws continue to exist because Parliament will not
find time for these minor matters. The Limitation Act,
1963,
is
not only a product
of
a rare process, but
it
is even more unusual
in that
a
Committee was set up to investigate the legal problem
before the House
of
Lords had the opportunity (which
it
did)
of
confirming the Court of Appeal’s decision on the unsatisfactory
state of the law. the plaintiffs had contracted pneumo-
coniosis as a result of continued exposure to silica dust during their
employment with the defendants. This exposure had, up to
1950,
been caused by the defendants’ breaches of duty under the Fac-
tories Act.
No
such breaches occurred after
1950,
by which time
the plaintiffs had contracted the disease, the damage to their lungs
having become more than trivial and, indeed, being capable of
detection by X-ray. They did not, however, discover, nor could
they reasonably have discovered, that they had suffered substantial
injury until more than six years after the damage commenced.
The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiffs were statute barred,
as
time ran from the date that the damage,
i.e.,
the disease, was
contracted. They had become statute barred before they even
knew that they had a cause of action! Thereupon a Committee
was appointed to consider the whole problem, and its Report was
produced before
Cartledge
v.
Jopling
was considered by the House
of
Lords. Their Lordships’ consciences appeared to be slightly
easier in affirming the Court of Appeal and references were made
to the Report of the Committee and the urgent necessity for
amendment to the law.4
1
[1962]
1
Q.B.
189
(C.A.);
[1963] 2
W.L.R.
210
(H.L.).
*
The limitation period for actions
for
personal injuries is now three years
(Limitation Act,
1939,
8.
2 (l),
as modified
by
the Law Reform (Limitation
of Actions) Act,
1954,
a.
2
(1))
but the cause
of
action in this case accrued
before
1951.
In
Cartledge
v.
Jopling
3
Report
of
the Edmund Davies Committee on Limitation
of
Actions in Cases
4
Lord Reid and Lord Hodson at
p.
213,
Lord Evershed at p.
214,
Lord
Lord Reid made an interesting
of Personal Injury,
1962
Cmnd.
1829.
Morris at
p.
216
and Lord Pearce at
p.
225.
distinction-in his approach to common law and statutes:
“If
this were
matter governed by the common law
I
would hold that
a
cause of action
199
To continue reading
Request your trial