Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:14

From: Neil Foster

Subject: Limitation of actions made interesting

Dear All

It is interesting that in A v Hoare [2008] UKHL 6 the complexities of saying that "breach of duty" can mean "trespass to the person" are almost completely ignored - Stubbings is given very short shrift, and effectively the Victorian decision in Kruber and the recent High Court of Australia decision in Stingel v Clark (2006) are adopted. To some extent the decision rests on the weight that should have been given to previous decisions (like the one in Billings v Reed in 1945 which described trespass as "a breach of duty as used in a wide sense"). But it certainly provides support for the view that there is a "duty" not to "inflict direct and immediate injury to the person of another" [10] (corresponding, of course, to the "right" we enjoy to bodily safety - Stevens, Torts and Rights, p 332).

Regards
Neil F

Neil Foster
Senior Lecturer, LLB Program Co-ordinator
Newcastle Law School
Faculty of Business & Law
MC158, McMullin Building
University of Newcastle
Callaghan NSW 2308
AUSTRALIA
ph 02 4921 7430
fax 02 4921 6931

>>> John Murphy 31/01/08 12:08 >>>

Dear All,

Limitation of actions isn't widely seen as being very interesting. But this rather intriguing case - decided by the Law Lords today - may be worth a read.

Here's the BBC headline:

Victims of sexual abuse may be able to sue their attackers after many years, following a ruling by the Law Lords.

They ruled a convicted rapist who later won £7m on the National Lottery could be sued by his victim - even though her claim was outside a six-year deadline.

And for the full (BBC) report go here.

The HL website will doubtless have the full report proper.

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>