HC Deb 23 June 1964 vol 697 cc203-5
6. Mr. Frank Allaun

asked the Attorney-General if he is aware of the hardship and injustice which is being caused because men and women suffering personal injuries who do not make claims or issue court proceedings within three years of an accident lose their right to claim under the Law Reform (Limitation of Actions) Act, 1954; and if he will introduce legislation extending the period of limitation to six years.

The Attorney-General

No. Save in exceptional cases, there is no reason why an injured person should not start proceedings within three years. In those exceptional cases where he cannot reasonably be expected to know within that period that he has suffered an injury that would justify proceedings, the Limitation Act, 1963, enables him to obtain leave to sue after the three years have expired.

Mr. Allaun

Is the Attorney-General aware that this question arises out of the case of a constituent of mine who, having been knocked down by a van and having been off work for a fortnight, accepted £7 from the firm's insurers? Five years later she had to have a leg amputated, with no compensation except an ex gratia payment of £100 from the firm. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman noted also the case in the Court of Appeal last week where a woman sunbathing in her hotel garden was run over by a car, again without the payment of any damages? Will the Attorney-General examine the 1954 and 1963 Acts and the Davies Commission's recommendations?

The Attorney-General

I am, of course, aware that there are occasions when people are unlucky enough to accept a sum which is not in the end full compensation; but usually, if they act on sound advice, they will not accept sums at such times. If they take the advice of experienced solicitors, they will usually find that their interests are well protected.

Sir B. Janner

May I ask the Attorney-General to reconsider this matter? Is he aware that a large number of decent people do not want to bring actions, unless they are compelled to do so? They wait for a considerable time. They eventually discover that there is an injury for which they should have claimed compensation. I appreciate that there are very exceptional cases in which a court will grant an extension, but does not the Attorney-General think that in these cases there should be as much right to sue within a six-year period as there is for a simple debt?

The Attorney-General

This raises a difficult question. It was considered by the Tucker Committee, which reported in 1949 before the 1954 Act was passed. In general, I would not have said that people who suffered a personal injury were in a situation in which they could not make up their minds whether they ought to issue a writ only—only no more, not to pursue it—within the period of three years from the time when they were injured.