[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Burke v Ashe Construction Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1913 (16 December 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1913.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1913

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM SLOUGH COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Harris QC)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2 Monday, 16 December 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN: I have the misfortune to take a different view from that expressed by Tuckey LJ who refused this application on the documents on 18 November 2002. It seems to me that there is something close to a question of principle involved in this case and I take the view that an appeal here would have realistic prospects of success.
2. Can it really be satisfactory that a defendant is to be faced with a claim issued four years out of time, seven years after the claimant's accident, despite the matter having been in the hand of the first set of lawyers from one year to three years post-accident, the second set from three-and-a-half years to five-and-a-half years post-accident, and a third set (the solicitors being the same for the second and third set) from five-and-a-half years to seven years post-accident? Assuming the prospects of success of the underlying claim are such as could conceivably justify litigating it so long out of time against the employers, surely they are such as to suggest that it is altogether more appropriate to claim against those who failed to bring it either in time or, at the very least, substantially sooner than this claim was brought, than against the employers who are undoubtedly prejudiced to some extent by the delay through no fault of their own.
3. Such is, as I understand it, essentially the argument that the applicant desires to run, and I at least think it deserves to be given its chance before the full court.
4. I accordingly grant permission.

ORDER: Application allowed with a time estimate of one day before three Lord Justices.

(Order does not form part of the approved judgment)