This site uses cookies.

‘Knowledge’ for Limitation Purposes: Is It Sufficient for a Claimant to Believe the Surgeons Had Resected Too Much Acromion When in Fact They Had Completely Detached the Deltoid Muscle? - Simon Wheatley, 7 Bedford Row

04/05/13. The definition of knowledge for the purposes of sections 11 and 14 of the Limitation Act 1980 is a subject which has generated a generous amount of legal scholarship. One only has to think of Nash v Eli Lilly [1993] 4 All ER 383, Forbes v Wandsworth Health Authority [1996] 4 All ER 881 and Spargo v North Essex District Health Authority (1997) PIQR 235 to realise how many times the central issue of what knowledge is required and when it is triggered has been analysed and considered. And behind that triumvirate there lies a depth of further cases, all contributing to the subject. So you might think that there would be no requirement for...

Image: public domain via wikipedia

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.