Platt v BRB (Residuary) Ltd

For limitation purposes, constructive knowledge under section 14(3) of the Limitation Act 1980 is assessed objectively by asking what knowledge the claimant might reasonably have been expected to acquire from medical advice it was reasonable to seek. The inquiry depends on all the circumstances and imposes a demanding standard. A claimant who consults a doctor about a condition may reasonably be expected to ask about its cause, even if the doctor has not volunteered the answer and the claimant has not considered litigation. The statutory proviso protects a claimant only while all reasonable steps are taken to obtain and, where appropriate, act on expert advice. The claimant should have asked whether noise exposure caused his hearing loss, so constructive knowledge arose more than three years before the claim.

Mr Howard Platt brought a personal injury claim against his former employer for noise-related hearing loss and tinnitus. He had consulted medical practitioners about ear problems, including an ENT specialist in 1997, but was not expressly told that his condition was noise induced until after reading a newspaper article in 2010.

HH Judge Halbert held that Mr Platt lacked constructive knowledge before 2010, so the claim was not statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980. BRB appealed. The central issue was whether it was reasonable to expect Mr Platt, having consulted the ENT specialist in 1997, to ask about the cause of his hearing loss.

Lord Justice Vos gave the leading judgment. Lady Justice Sharp and Lord Justice Jackson agreed. The appeal was allowed.

1. Statutory test. Sections 11(4) and 14(3) of the Limitation Act 1980 required the court to ask what knowledge Mr Platt might reasonably have been expected to acquire from medical advice which it was reasonable for him to seek. The inquiry was predominantly objective and depended on all the circumstances. The proviso required reasonable steps to obtain and, where appropriate, act on expert advice.
2. Authorities. The court treated London Strategic Health Authority v. Whiston [2010] EWCA Civ 195 as the binding exposition of the law. It rejected any automatic assumption that a person aware of significant injury must always be curious about its cause. The demanding standard was supported by the reasoning of Lord Hoffmann in Adams v. Bracknell Forest Borough Council [2005] 1 AC 76, and by the approach in Johnson v. Ministry of Defence [2012] EWCA Civ 1505.
3. Application. Mr Platt had taken reasonable steps to obtain medical advice, but it was reasonable to expect him to ask the ENT specialist what had caused his hearing loss. His retirement nine years earlier and his previous ear problems did not make that question unreasonable. The precise interview circumstances were relevant but not determinative. The same conclusion would have followed even if the specialist had not raised noise exposure, because a reasonable claimant should have asked about causation.
4. Order. The order below was reversed. Judgment was entered for BRB on the limitation issue, on the basis that Mr Platt had constructive knowledge of the relevant matters more than three years before issuing his claim. The lower judge’s obiter view concerning section 33 was not challenged.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal allowed and the relevant order of the Chester County Court reversed. Judgment entered for BRB on the limitation issue: [2014] EWCA Civ 1401.
• Chester County Court: HH Judge Halbert held that the claimant did not have constructive knowledge of attributability before 2010 and treated the claim as not statute barred. Judgment was given on 21 November 2013; the order reversed on appeal was dated 28 November 2013.