Court judgment undermines time limit on claims
Series: Financial Times ; 23 February 2001, 5(1)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: 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.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| News article | London News article | WB3709-20 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 111209-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: News article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
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.