Limitation of Actions Consultation - Law Commission

clearly established that there is a real likelihood of injustice on a
considerable scale resulting in the event of the repeal of the Act. 200
13.147 It was of the view that the special protection given to public authorities could not
be justified, if its recommendations shortening the general limitation period
applicable to personal injuries from six years to two years, 201
were accepted. 202
It
noted a number of problems in the operation of the Act:
(1) The manifest injustice to individuals. 203
(2) The difficulty in deciding whether any particular act was within the
protection afforded. This depended on “a fine distinction” between acts
done in pursuance of duties and acts done in pursuance of incidental
powers. 204
(3) The difficulty in deciding whether a particular body was covered by the
provisions of the Act. 205
(4) Difficulties arising with regard to actions for a contribution when there
were joint tortfeasors of whom one was a private individual and one was a
public authority. 206
(5) The view taken by public authorities that they had no discretion as to
whether to rely on the Act or not, but that they were bound to plead it
when it applied. 207
13.148 In consequence the Tucker Committee recommended that the Act should be
repealed, a recommendation which was implemented in the Law Reform
(Limitation of Actions, etc) Act 1954. Since this time, the limitation period for
actions against public authorities has been the same as for any other defendant. As
said by Lord Bridge of Harwich
200 See para 6.
The philosophy which was once thought to justify the distinction between
public and private defendants in this regard had fallen wholly into disrepute
201 Subject to a judicial discretion to grant leave to bring an action after two years but before
six years from the accrual of the cause of action in exceptional cases: see para 1.13 above.
202 The Committee noted that public authorities were most apprehensive about claims for
personal injuries, and indeed that the majority of evidence they had heard related to these
claims. See para 16. In the event their recommendations were not accepted. The
limitation period was reduced to three years.
203 See paras 7 and 12.
204 See para 8.
205 See paras 8, 9, 11.
206 See para 10.
207 A view which was noted to have some judicial authority. See para 13.
371