|
WALKLEY OVERRULED
Those of you who follow these matters will undoubtedly be aware of the recent decision in Horton v. Sadler [2006] UKHL 27, in which the House of Lords overturned the long-criticised rule in Walkley v. Precision Forgings Ltd [1979] 2 All ER 548. That rule stated: if a claimant brought a P.I. claim within the primary limitation period of three years, but that claim was discontinued or struck out for non-compliance with time limits, the court had no discretion under s.33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the limitation period. This is because any prejudice the claimant suffered was not due to the limitation period imposed by s.11, but resulted from the dilatoriness of himself or his representatives.
The rule attracted a great deal of adverse comment, and the Court of Appeal always went out of its way to find ways to distinguish it, most recently in Adam v. Ali [2006] EWCA Civ 91. Now the House of Lords has taken the very unusual step of reversing it. This journal applauds that decision – and indeed our sister newsletter PIBU mooted the possibility back in April. There was never any good reason to put a claimant who had issued but been struck out in a worse position than a claimant who had never issued at all.
STATE IMMUNITY
On an unrelated note, the House of Lords recently held that four claimants could not sue the state of Saudi Arabia for personal injuries they say it inflicted on them by torture: Jones v. Saudi Arabia [2006] UKHL 26. The Lords ruled that acts of torture carried out by a country’s officials did fall under the Act, as the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984 only required a private right of action in the state which did the torturing. The Act was therefore not a violation of the victims’ human rights.
This may have been the correct decision on the law. But is it really just? Does anyone really think that a country which tortures people would have a judiciary prepared to sustain an action against its own government? With the body of international law growing year by year, surely it is appropriate to create a private right of action in such matters in countries – such as England and Wales – which possess an independent judiciary. Assuming Saudi Arabia has assets in this country, such an action could be very effective.
|
