Negligence ruling opens floodgates
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A judgment in the House of Lords yesterday could open the floodgates to legal actions for negligence against professional advisers and construction industry contractors even though the disputed events happened decades ago.
Three of the five judges in the case overturned a Court of Appeal judgment in June last year that, in effect, limited the scope for taking legal action against professional advisers. The two other judges supported the Appeal Court ruling.
At present, in most legal actions, litigants are prevented from starting a case if the cause of action occurred more than six years ago. However, the Limitations Act 1980 allows an exception to this rule if there has been deliberate concealment of negligence.
In yesterday's case, the Law Lords decided that a group of 500 Lloyd's names who were on an insurance syndicate in 1982 are still able to sue syndicate managers who ran up losses totalling £370m.
Lawyers for the managers of the Outhwaite syndicate 317 had argued that the normal six-year time bar for bringing legal actions applied. They claimed the statutory exception did not apply on the grounds there was no concealment at the time of the alleged negligence.
Lawyers for the names successfully argued it did not matter that the negligence and the concealment did not occur at the same time.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments