HL Deb 12 July 1938 vol 110 cc758-61

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 22:

Extension of limitation period in case of disability.

22. If on the date when any right of action accrued for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, the person to whom it accrued was under a disability, the action may be brought at any time before the expiration of six years, or in the case of actions to which the last foregoing section applies, one year from the date when the person ceased to be under a disability or died, whichever event first occurred, notwithstanding that the period of limitation has expired:

Provided that—

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of proviso (c), to leave out "and" and insert: (d) this section, so far as it relates to the disability of infancy or unsoundness of mind, shall not apply to any action to which the last foregoing section applies, unless the plaintiff proves that the person under a disability was not, at the time when the right of action accrued to him, in the custody of a parent; and".

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, you will remember that on the last occasion when this Bill was before the House a number of Peers representing different public authorities objected to the extension of the limitation period in so far as it related to disabilities, with respect to actions against a public authority, and accordingly it was suggested that the provisions in Clause 22 relating to disability should not apply to Clause 21, which relates to actions against public authorities. That proposal was supported by arguments which I have to admit had considerable weight. It, however, occurred to me that there were a large number of infants who occasionally suffer injury by some negligence on the part of public authorities and that it would be hard if those infants had nobody to bring an action on their behalf and therefore altogether lost any right of action even in respect of what might be a very serious cause of action. Accordingly when the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who spoke on this matter for the county councils, moved his Amendment and it had received the support of several other noble Lords, I suggested to him that there might be, if the general idea were agreed with, an exception in the case of infants and persons of unsound mind who had nobody who was likely to be able to bring the action on their behalf within one year from the cause of action arising, which is the period of limitation mentioned in Clause 21.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, agreed in substance with the suggestion I made in that respect, but I think it was not very clear whether an Amendment should be put down on behalf of the Government or by the noble Earl. As time seemed to be pressing, I took steps to put down the Amendment which I now move. It provides in substance for that which the public authorities require—namely, that in the ordinary case the action must be brought within the year, but, where the unfortunate infant or person of unsound mind has not got anybody in loco parentis to him or her so that the action can be brought within the year, there should be the exception that the year should not run until the disability has come to an end. I think that is agreed in all respects.

The only thing that was not mentioned at the time was this, that "parent" wanted a definition. "Parent" in fact has a particular meaning in the Fatal Accidents Act, 1846, as extended by Section 2 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934, and that, as your Lordships see, is the subject of the next Amendment on the Paper. I mention it because it relates to paragraph (d) where it says: unless the plaintiff proves that the person under disability was not, at the time when the right of action accrued to him, in the custody of a parent. A parent for this purpose may include a grandfather or grandmother, a stepfather or stepmother, and in some cases the parent of the child. I have communicated with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, with regard to this Amendment and I think I am right in saying he agrees with it. Accordingly I beg to move it.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 38, leave out ("and") and insert the said paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD JESSEL

My Lords, I was one of those who intended to take part on behalf of the London County Council in helping to secure this Amendment. It is one of the cases where the London County Council and the municipal authorities and county boroughs association agreed that something was desirable to protect the local authorities in regard to the numerous cases that arise. There are several hundred cases a year in London alone. Unfortunately the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is not here at the moment because the London County Council is sitting. I have inquired from the authorities and they tell me they are more than satisfied with the Amendment that has been put down by the Lord Chancellor. As regards the further Amendment to which the noble and learned Lord has referred, I must say that, though I do not object to it, I do not like it because it is so very involved. This is legislation by reference with a vengeance. How any ordinary person is to understand what is meant I do not know. The other portions of the definition are clear and simple. This, however, has not only one reference but it has two, poor thing. It makes it very difficult. I presume it is quite clear to those who understand legal matters, but I still have an objection to extraordinarily complicated references of this kind. I am sure, however, that the local authorities are very grateful to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor.

LORD AMULREE

My Lords, I ventured to make certain observations on the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, speaking more particularly on behalf of the Association of Municipal Corporations. They have carefully considered the Amendment which the noble and learned Lord has moved and they desire me to say that they cordially agree with it. It meets the point of view they put forward and I thank the noble and learned Lord for meeting the objection they made to this clause. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, who unfortunately had to leave the House a few minutes ago, intended also to express the opinion that it met the point put forward by the Port of London Authority, and he wished to thank the noble and learned Lord for his courtesy in meeting the criticisms made on behalf of the various port authorities.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

My Lords, I should like to apologise to your Lordships for my inability to be present during the whole of the discussion on this Amendment owing to important public business on the other side of the Thames. I would briefly echo the words that have fallen from the two noble Lords who have just spoken. The London County Council are satisfied, and indeed more than satisfied, by the Amendment which the noble and learned Lord has put down in order to meet the case that was made during the Committee stage. That satisfaction is, of course, shared, as other noble Lords pointed out, by the municipal authorities and the port and harbour authorities in other parts of the country. I should like to say how grateful the London County Council feel for the generous and chivalrous manner in which the noble and learned Lord has met the very urgent case to which they drew his attention on the Committee stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 31 [Interpretation]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert: 'Parent' has the same meaning as in the Fatal Accidents Act, 1846, as extended by Section two of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already informed your Lordships of the object of this Amendment. I quite admit that this is legislation by reference. It has been done by a thrifty mind in order to save a few lines of printing. In some cases, no doubt, in the course of years, that saving does amount to a fair sum of money. Using the referential system reduces the amount of printing not only in the case of Bills and Amendments but in Acts of Parliament. In the particular case I think we save three lines or it may be a little more. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to look into the matter, and if as a matter of fact it is a very short definition I might be allowed to insert it at the last stage of the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 20, line 12, at end insert: ("'Parent' has the same meaning as in the Fatal Accidents Act, 1846, as extended by Section two of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.