Limitation of Actions Consultation - Law Commission

elevant limitation period was that given by section 2 of the 1980 Act, namely six
years from the accrual of the cause of action. Even though this period did not
start to run until the plaintiff attained her majority, it had expired several years
before the proceedings were issued, and the action was therefore time-barred.
3.34 The House of Lords justified this conclusion by reference to the Report of the
Committee on the Limitation of Actions (“the Tucker Committee”). 65
One
important reason this Committee had been set up was to inquire into section 21 of
the Limitation Act 1939 which gave special protection to public authorities by
providing for a 12 month limitation period in respect of actions brought against
public authorities for personal injuries arising out of accidents. The Committee
recommended that there should be a two-year limitation period for all personal
injury actions, whether they were against a public authority or not but that this
category should not include trespass to the person, false imprisonment, malicious
prosecution, or defamation. The recommendations of the Tucker Committee were
largely given effect to by the Law Reform (Limitation of Actions, etc.) Act 1954
but the recommended two-year limitation period for personal injuries was
extended to three years. 66
Thus the proviso (in section 2(1) of the 1954 Act) to
the normal six-year limitation period read, “Provided that, in the case of actions
for damages for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty (whether the duty exists by
virtue of a contract or of provision made by or under a statute or independently of
any contract or any such provision) where the damages claimed by the plaintiff for
the negligence, nuisance or breach of duty consist of or include damages in respect
of personal injuries to any person, this subsection shall have effect as if for the
reference to six years there were substituted a reference to three years”. As the
plaintiff’s action in Stubbings was for trespass to the person and given that the
relevant parts of section 11 of the 1980 Act are identical to the 1954 Act, the
House of Lords held that the six-year limitation period should apply. This view
was fortified by reference to Hansard in respect to the 1954 Act which evidenced
Parliament’s intention to enact the Tucker Committee’s recommendations on this
point. 67
3.35 An application by the plaintiff in Stubbings v Webb was made to the European
Court of Human Rights claiming that there had been a breach of Articles 6, 8 and
14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 68
The Court held that there
65 Report of the Committee on the Limitation of Actions (1949) Cmd 7740. See para 1.13 above.
66 The Tucker Committee had also recommended that the courts should have a discretion to
extend the period (for non-intentional injuries) for up to six years but this was not
implemented.
67 The Court’s reliance on the Tucker Committee’s report has been criticised on the grounds
that the Committee wished to put victims of an intentional trespass in a more favourable
position than the victim of an unintentional trespass, a rationale which has been weakened
by the introduction in 1975 of a discretionary power to disapply the limitation period.
“Reliance on the recommendations of a 1949 Committee and the words of a Member of
Parliament nearly 40 years ago scarcely seems the most rational way to develop a very tricky
and technical area of English law.” See A McGee, “Trespass and Limitation” (1993) 109
LQR 356, 358. See also WVH Rogers, “Limitation and Intentional Torts” (1993) 143 NLJ
258; J Allinson, “Limitation of Actions in Child Abuse Cases” [1996] JPIL 19.
68 Article 6(1) provides that “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any
criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a
reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law”. Article 8
38