Oakes v Hopcroft

Section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 starts the alternative three-year period when the claimant first has both the statutory knowledge and a right to sue. The knowledge must concern the material damage and the facts linking it to the act or omission alleged to constitute negligence. Where negligent medical reporting allegedly causes an under-settlement, the relevant damage is the settlement for less than its true value. The claimant must know the causal essence of the misdiagnosis or omission, not merely that the injuries were worse than reported. Knowledge of legal negligence is unnecessary. Constructive knowledge is not imputed where the claimant has reasonably obtained and acted on professional advice. Later awareness that the condition is serious or persistent does not alone require a fresh investigation.

Mrs Oakes had settled a personal injury claim against her employers for £2,000 in 1983, relying on medical reports prepared by Mr Hopcroft. She later alleged that his negligent misdiagnosis and reporting caused the settlement to fall below the claim’s true value.

Her negligence action was issued on 8 March 1991. On a preliminary limitation issue, Judge Hedley, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, held that the claim was statute barred. The appeal concerned when Mrs Oakes first acquired actual or constructive knowledge under section 14A, having regard to her medical condition, the settlement advice, and later medical evidence.

Disposition. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal with costs. The claim was not statute barred.

1. Statutory framework. Under section 14A(4) and (5) of the Limitation Act 1980, the alternative three-year period begins on the earliest date when the claimant first has both the required knowledge and a right to bring the action. The knowledge requirements in section 14A(6) have two limbs, both of which must be satisfied.
2. Nature of the required knowledge. Under section 14A(6)(a) and (7), the test concerning material facts about damage is objective. It is satisfied when the claimant knows of damage sufficiently serious to justify proceedings. Later discovery of more serious damage does not restart time. Under section 14A(6)(b) and (8)(a), the claimant must know that the relevant damage is attributable, at least in part, to the act or omission alleged to constitute negligence. Knowledge that the conduct was legally negligent is irrelevant under section 14A(9).
3. Relevant damage and causal act. Lord Woolf CJ, whose reasoning was adopted or agreed with by Lords Justices Waller and Clarke, held that the precise damage and causally relevant act must be identified. Here, the damage was the under-settlement, while the relevant negligence was the misdiagnosis and incorrect reporting of Mrs Oakes’s condition. Following the approach in North Essex District Health Authority v Spargo [1997] 8 Med LR 125 and Hallam-Eames v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 7 Med LR 122, awareness that symptoms were worse than reported, or that the settlement appeared low, was insufficient. She needed knowledge of the causal essence of the misdiagnosis or omission.
4. Constructive knowledge and application. Section 14A(10) applies an objective test, but does not impute a fact ascertainable only through expert advice while the claimant has taken all reasonable steps to obtain and act on that advice. Mrs Oakes had reasonably relied on Mr Hopcroft’s reports and on advice from her solicitors and counsel. Her continuing reliance remained reasonable despite persistent and serious symptoms. By March 1988 she did not know that the under-settlement was caused by Mr Hopcroft’s misdiagnosis or failure to advise about permanent injuries and future inability to work. That knowledge arose only with Professor O’Connor’s report in 1990, after the relevant limitation date.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2000] EWCA Civ 237: appeal allowed with costs; the claim was not statute barred.
2. High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Wigan District Registry — Judge Hedley sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge: on a preliminary issue, held that the claim was statute barred.