#13773 - Limitation Periods - BPC Civil Litigation

Limitation Periods

Discretionary Adjustments

• s32A LA 1980 - Court has a discretion in defamation or malicious falsehood, to direct that s4A does not apply after considering the length of, and reasons for the delay by C, when facts became known by C, the extent to which relevant evidence is likely to be available, or less cogent etc.

• s33 LA 1980 - Court has a discretion in PI/death cases under s11, 11A, 12 LA 1980 to disapply the above time limits where it is “equitable” to do so.

How is time determined?

• Time limits are determined as follows (Nigel Zoan v Beatrice Rouamba)

  • If fixed period “beginning with”or “from”, it is a question of construction whether it includes the specified date.

  • If fixed period from or after a specified date, the courts have consistently held the specified date is excluded - I.E The period starts after the specified date.

    • I.E: Limitation Periods run X years the day after the date of action accrues!

Children & The Disabled

• s28 LA 1980 - Time doesn’t run against a person under a disability until they’ve recovered from the disability! So potentially huge limitation period!

• s38(2) LA 1980 - A child is treated as under a disability until the age of 18!

Basic Limitation Periods for Tort

1. General Rule is 6 years unless specific period applies

2. General Negligence = 15 years from the act per s14B LA 1980.

3. Latent Damage Negligence = 6 years from knowledge per s14A LA 1980;

4. Simple Tort = 6 years from accident per s2 LA 1980.

5. Personal Injury Negligence = 3 years from accident or knowledge (later) per s11 LA 1980.

When do you have “knowledge”?

• Defined in s14A(6) as both:

  • Material facts about damage (def: s14A(7) as “sufficiently serious to justify instituting proceedings”) and

  • That (s14A(8)):

    • Damage attributable in whole or part to negligence;

    • Identity of D;

    • If the alleged act/omission was that of a person other than D, the identity of that person, and the facts supporting bringing the action against D.

This includes knowledge which C might reasonably have expected to acquire from facts observable or ascertainable by him, or with the help of reasonable medical or expert advice. But will be fixed with knowledge of a fact only ascertainable with expert advice only if he took that advice and acted upon that advice (IE : If he wasn’t told by expert, he won’t be fixed with knowledge) Thus can get constructive knowledge (either through self, or through expert!)

Knowledge that the facts amount to negligence is irrelevant.