Pearce & Ors v The Secretary of State for Business, Energy And Industrial Strategy & Ors

For chronic bronchitis claims, diagnosis must be determined by applying ordinary principles of evidence to the whole case. Claims-handling guidance may assist, but it cannot replace the court’s assessment of lay evidence, medical records and expert opinion.

Under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, the court must balance prejudice. The claimant bears the ultimate burden of showing that it would be equitable to disapply the limitation period, while the defendant bears the evidential burden of showing that delay has impaired the defence. The statutory factors guide, but do not fetter, the discretion.

This group litigation concerned claims by former coke-oven workers alleging chronic bronchitis caused by occupational exposure to dust and fumes. Only the claims of Graham Duck and the estate of George Nicholls remained for determination.

The court considered whether Mr Duck had established chronic bronchitis, whether Mrs Nicholls’ claim was time-barred, and, if so, whether the limitation period should be disapplied under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980. The court then determined liability and damages in Mr Nicholls’ claim.

1. Mr Duck. The Claims Handling Agreement guidance was useful, but it did not displace ordinary common-law principles. The court assessed the claimant’s credibility, contemporaneous records and expert evidence together. Mr Duck’s evidence was materially undermined by inconsistencies in earlier claims. The medical records did not establish chronic bronchitis, and the claim failed.
2. Limitation. The court dealt with limitation before substantive liability. Section 33 required a broad assessment of all the circumstances and a balance of prejudice. The burden was on Mrs Nicholls to show that her prejudice would outweigh the defendant’s. The long delay and loss of evidence reduced cogency, but did not significantly impair the defendant’s ability to contest liability or quantum. The period was therefore disapplied.
3. The court considered the statutory factors, including the length and reasons for delay, evidential deterioration, the defendant’s conduct, promptness, advice received and proportionality. Mrs Nicholls’ delay was not attributable to a conscious decision to abandon a known claim. Her evidence concerned a chronic condition and remained sufficiently reliable.
4. Substantive claim. The court accepted that Mr Nicholls had suffered chronic bronchitis. His wife’s evidence was credible, and the medical records were not sufficiently contradictory. The court rejected the contention that the relative paucity of medical records made the diagnosis impossible. It awarded £17,500 in general damages, reduced for contributory negligence to £15,120, with £733 interest. Judgment was entered for Mrs Nicholls for £15,853.