Court judgment undermines time limit on claims
Court judgment undermines time limit on claims
- 2001
- Financial Times 23 February 2001, 5(1) .
The CA ruling in "Cave v Robinson Jarvis & Walsh" that a negligence claim that had been brought more than three years after the problem concerned came to light could go ahead means that professionals can no longer rely on the fifteen year longstop. Previously it was only possible to bring a later claim where facts relating to it had been deliberately concealed or there had been a 'deliberate commission of a breach of duty' by the professional involved but in the judgment this was interpreted as any deliberate act resulting in a breach of a duty of care.
CAVE V ROBINSON JARVIS & ROLF
DUTY OF CARE
LATENT DAMAGES ACT 1986
LIMITATION
LONGSTOP DATE
NEGLIGENCE
NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS
TIME BAR
The CA ruling in "Cave v Robinson Jarvis & Walsh" that a negligence claim that had been brought more than three years after the problem concerned came to light could go ahead means that professionals can no longer rely on the fifteen year longstop. Previously it was only possible to bring a later claim where facts relating to it had been deliberately concealed or there had been a 'deliberate commission of a breach of duty' by the professional involved but in the judgment this was interpreted as any deliberate act resulting in a breach of a duty of care.
CAVE V ROBINSON JARVIS & ROLF
DUTY OF CARE
LATENT DAMAGES ACT 1986
LIMITATION
LONGSTOP DATE
NEGLIGENCE
NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS
TIME BAR