Re Pickles v National Coal Board (Intended Action)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE DAVIES,LORD JUSTICE RUSSELL,THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS |
| Judgment Date | 29 March 1968 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1968] EWCA Civ J0329-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 29 March 1968 |
[1968] EWCA Civ J0329-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Civil Division
From Mr Justice Thompson
The Master of the Rolls
(Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Davies and
Lord Justice Russell
Re The Limitation Act, 1963
Re An Intended Action Between
MR. HUGH GRIFFITHS, Q. C. and Mr J. MELVILLE WILLIAMS (instructed by Messrs W. H. Thompson) appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
THE RESPONDENTS did not appear.
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS? This is yet another case under the Limitation Act 1963. Mr. Stanley Pickles was at one time a mine worker. For two years before the War he worked on a screening plant in a mine in County Durham. He went to the War. After he came back he worked underground from 1947 until September 1960. He was then a member of the Mine workers' Union. In 1960 he ceased working in a mine and became a lathe operator. He moved down from Durham to Bedfordshire. He joined the Amalgamated Engineering Union. He worked there until he was taken ill in February 1966 with trouble in his chest. It was thought at first to be tuberculosis, but afterwards it was found to be silicosis.
In July 1966 (and this is the important date) he was told by his doctor that he had silicosis and he had contracted it while he was working at the colliery in County Durham. He did not realise then that he had any claim for negligence or breach of statutory duty, but he thought he would have a claim on the National Insurance Fund. He went along to the Amalgamated Engineering Union in Bedfordshire, The Union Representative wrote up to head office who suggested that he should fill in a schedule in the usual form. In September 1966 he filled in the form. He said that he had got silicosis. One of the questions was whether the employers were to blame. He left the answer blank. He did not know that it was the fault of the employers. The Union Representative unfortunately did not at that time send the form up to the head office. It seems to have got lost somehow amongst his papers. He did not. send the form up to head office until June 1967. Meanwhile, Mr Pickles had been along and asked about it on several occasions and he had been put off for one reason or another. When the form did get to head office, they thought it was a case for legal advice. The legal advisers looked into the matter. They thought that there might be a claim bythe man for negligence or breach of statutory duty. In July 1967, Mr. Pickles was told that that was their view. By that time the period of limitation had long expired. In order to overcome that bar, the solicitors on his behalf made application for leave under the Limitation Act, 1963. They set out in an affidavit for the Court the circumstances, most of which I have already described. It came before the Judge - of course it was ex parte - and the Judge thought it was not a case in which he should grant leave. Now Mr Hugh Griffiths comes before us on his behalf and asks us to review the Judge's decision.
This is one more case on this very complicated and obscure Act. I need not recite all the provisions again. But it is quite plain that a man has to get leave to bring an action, and actually to bring the action, within twelve months of the time when he gets to know (actually or constructively) the material facts (those facts being of a decisive character). The Judge seems to have thought that in this case the man got to know the material facts in July 1966, or at latest September 1966, when he knew that he had got silicosis through working in the coal mine: and, seeing that more than twelve months had elapsed since he got that knowledge, the Judge refused to grant him leave. Mr. Griffiths submits to us that the Judge did not correctly interpret the statute. He says that it is not enough for the man to know that he has silicosis due to working in a mine. He must also know that it is attributable to negligence or breach of statutory duty: and in this case Mr Pickles did not know it was so attributable until until July 1967.
The definition of "material facts" is contained in Section 7(3). It says: "Any reference to the material facts relating to a cause of action is a reference to any one ormore of the following, that is to say, (a) the fact, that personal injuries resulted from the negligence, nuisance or "breach of duty constituting that cause of action. (c) the fact that the personal injuries so resulting were attributable to that negligence, nuisance or breach of duty". That definition makes it clear that the attributability of the injury to negligence or breach of duty, or, in other words, its causation, is a material fact within the statute. I realise that, in the ordinary way, attributability or causation is regarded as a point of law, but, nevertheless, I think that for the purpose of this statute, it is to be regarded as a material fact.
Once attributability or causation is seen to be a material fact, the next question is when did Mr Pickles get to know (actually or constructively) that his disease was attributable to the negligence or breach of duty of his employers. For that purpose we have to look at sub-section (5) of Section 7. If one goes through that section, it is plain that sub-section (5)(a) is satisfied. He did not actually know of the attributability of negligence or breach of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Newton v Cammell Laird & Company (Shipbuilders and Engineers) Ltd
...is dealt with in section 7(5)(5) and (c), which I need not analyse in detail again today. They were considered by this Court in Pickles v. National Coal Board (1968 1 W.L.R. 997); and in Skingsley v. Cape Asbestos Co. Ltd. (1968 2 Lioyds Reports 201). Those cases show that the test of const......
- Wright v Dunlop Rubber Company Ltd
-
Skingsley v Cape Asbestos Company Ltd
...time. So he refused to give leave. Mr Skingsley appeals to this Court. 4 We considered this Act quite recently in the cast of Pickles v. National Coal Board. The case shows that, in the case of an industrial disease, time does not run against a man unless and until he has knowledge (actual ......
- Drinkwater v Joseph Lucas (Electrical) Ltd