If you’ve studied Tort law, you’ll be aware that claims in negligence must be brought within 6 years. But what if something else happens, years after that claim has been settled, that means the situation has significantly worsened for the claimant?

A recent case considers the limitation period in just such a scenario. In Witcomb v J Keith Park Solicitors & Anor, a 17-year-old was injured in a road accident in 2002. A third party admitted liability and the claim was settled on a “full and final” basis for £150,000.

In 2017, the claimant was told that he may need to undergo amputation of his right foot and lower leg; an event which had not been taken into consideration when the settlement figure was agreed.

The court had to consider when the claimant had “relevant knowledge” of the negligent act, i.e. the allegedly negligent advice from his solicitors which led to the under-settlement.

It was held that the new development – i.e. the potential need for amputation – which led the claimant to taking further legal advice and discovering that he could have submitted a claim for provisional damages, meant that the claimant was not barred by limitation.

This is merely a preliminary finding, and when the case proceeds, the claimant will still need to establish negligence, causation and loss as with any other claim in negligence, however it provides an interesting insight into the courts’ interpretation of the Limitation Act 1980 in an unusual set of circumstances. This case may be one to watch as it develops, especially for essays and problem questions around the issue of limitation periods.

Our LLB Tort Law guide covers all of the important Tort Law topics in condensed, easy-to-digest notes, and our Tort Law case book summarises approximately 700 Tort cases with facts and legal principles.