Child Abuse Law
  • Home
    • About
  • Case Law
  • CICA Claims
  • Contact
  • Blog
TPE v Harvey Franks [2018] EWHC 1765 (QB) -  limitation
 
The Claimant sued for personal injury and loss arising out of sexual offences committed against him by the Defendant in 1997-8, and for which he had been convicted in 2016. A letter before claim was sent to the Defendant in prison in May 2017. The claim was issued and served on the Defendant in prison on or about 1 August 2017. No acknowledgement of service or defence was entered. On 16 August 2017 The Claimant applied for summary judgment. This was granted on 24 August 2017. On 25 September 2017 the Defendant’s solicitors notified TPE's solicitors that they were now acting. Master McCloud refused to set aside the default judgment entered against the Defendant. She did so on the basis that the Appellant had no reasonable prospects of defending the claim, in particular, on the grounds that the claim was brought outside the three-year period provided for in s 11 of the Limitation Act 1980. The Master held that it was inevitable that any judge would exclude the time limit pursuant to the equitable power to do so in Section 33 of the 1980 Act.
The order of Master McCloud was appealed and that appeal was successful before Mr Justice Knowles. He said that the Master should first have considered the merits of the Defendant’s claim that there was a real prospect of succeeding in a defence and, if she was in the Defendant’s favour on that issue, then gone on to consider how to exercise her discretion in light of her conclusion on promptness and the other factors identified by caselaw. There was also a problem because the Claimant’s solicitor had served his skeleton argument raising the issue of limitation 20 minutes before the hearing, at which point the Defendant’s counsel was “ambushed”. 
 
Knowles J then took the unusual step of re-exercising the court’s discretion on Section 33 in relation to this claim. He pointed to a number of deficiencies in the Claimant’s account of why it had taken this long to bring a claim, including evidence from the Claimant himself. Consequently, judgment would be set aside. 
 
 

Contact Us

    Subscribe to Updates Today!

Submit

The contents of this site remains the sole responsibility of Malcolm Johnson as a private individual, and is not endorsed by any business by which he is employed.  In particular Malcolm Johnson does not hold himself out as preparing this website for or on behalf of any business by which he is employed, or as having been authorised by any business or employer to do so.  It is not intended to stand as legal advice in any particular case, and should not be relied upon as such.   To the extent permitted by law, Malcolm Johnson will not be liable by reason of breach of contract, negligence, or otherwise for any loss of consequential loss occasioned to any person acting omitting to act or refraining from acting in reliance upon the website material or arising from or connected with any error or omission in the website material.    Consequential loss shall be deemed to include, but is not limited to, any loss of profits or anticipated profits, damage to reputation, or goodwill, loss of business or anticipated business, damages, costs, expenses incurred or payable to any third party or any other indirect or consequential losses.

  • Home
    • About
  • Case Law
  • CICA Claims
  • Contact
  • Blog