Statute of Limitations.

happyoutish

Has statute of limitations changed from 3 years to two years? if so when did it change??

Thanks.

Our man in Havana

I assume you mean for personal injury claims? It was changed to 2 years when PIAB now the Injuries Board was established.

happyoutish

Thanks for that...

PIAB wasn't involved though.. Nor was I advised to go that way.

Here's a quick summary of why I was asking...

I was threatened by someone with a knife (in my place of work) a few years back... they got a slap on the wrist from the judge and I felt I should have got compo..

Took me awhile to get over it and only went to a Solicitor this year (Jan) and only got told last week its Statue barred!

Our man in Havana

Yep, It would be as it is a personal injury matter.

dats_right

Bond-007 wrote: »

Yep, It would be as it is a personal injury matter.

Not that simple. The shorter two year limitation period introduced by section 7 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 only applies to personal injuries arising from negligence, nuisance or breach of duty. There is an important distinction in the case of the deliberate tort of trespass to the person i.e assault and battery, where the limitation period is 6 years from the date of accrual per section 11 of the Statute of Limitations Act 1957.

Therefore, based on what information the OP has told us he/she would have six years to bring an action against the actual perpetrator of the assault, but if they were instead alleging some sort of negligence or breach of duty against their employer arising out of the incident well then the two year limitation period would apply.

We don't know when the incident occured and can't therefore be sure if the OP is in fact statute barred. It could be the case that any potential claim against the employer is statute barred but is not statute barred as against the perpetrator of the assault; in which case, even though not statute barred it may well be the case that there is little point pursuing a claim against that individual as they don't represent 'a mark' i.e. will not be able to pay any award of damages and civil proceedings againt him will thus be a fruitless exercise.

Of course actual legal advice is prohibited on this forum and rightly so, but even if the OP were not statute barred as their solicitor has already informed them, from the information we are provided there seems to me that there might well be very little injury or loss suffered in the legal sense. Because there doesn't seem to have been an actual physical injury suffered and by the OP's own admission he/she merely says that it: "Took me awhile to get over it ". I'm not trivialising the incident, but unless there was medical evidence to support that the OP suffered from psychiatic injury, anxiety, depression, etc. arising from the incident then it would be difficult to sustain an argument that the OP suffered any loss or injury and no loss/injury = no damages.

Jo King

All personal injuries have to be referred to PIAB other than medical negligence cases. This is the case even where the cause of action is assault. PIAB will usually decline to deal with an assault case and issue an authorisation. The limitation period for assault was not altered at the time PIAB was set up and remains at 6 years. With regard to negligence, the limitation period can be extended where the claimant was under a disability and could not claim. From the facts given it is not possible to say whether the o/p has any chance of getting a claim.

happyoutish

Wow thanks for that everyone..

Incident happened in 2006. I was not physically injured but I did have some problems after, i.e. depression and found it hard to go anywhere on my own. I also kept the office door locked and still do when i'm in the office on my own.

I have nothing against my employer (i'm still here ) at the end of the day it had nothing to do with them as such even though it had to do with work.

Thanks for your replies though VERY much appreciated

I suppose at this stage I should just leave it. I'm just a bit upset that my Solicitor did not discuss PIAB with me or anything like that. I was just told "i'll sort it out"

thanks again everyone!

Jo King

If you have no complaint against your employer; who did you expect to pay the compensation? The perpetrator?
It happens in some criminal cases that the judge will exert some pressure on the perpetrator of an assault to pay compensation to the victim but it does not always happen. It can be a mitigating factor if some compensation is paid. If the perpetrator can't or won't pay compensation then that is the end of it as far as the criminal courts are concerned.

happyoutish

Jo King wrote: »

If you have no complaint against your employer; who did you expect to pay the compensation? The perpetrator?

And why shouldn't the perpetrator pay compensation??? They were the one who entered my office and stuck a knife in my face!! Why would my employer be responsible for someone else's actions??? Please explain

No offence Jo King but the tone of your post sounds like your in foul form!!! Late night?????

McCrack

No Jo King is making fair points. You see in employment situations the employer is charged with providing his staff with a safe place/systems of work. Depending on the facts the employer if he failed to meet these standards is liable to compensate the employee.

I mean do you really think the **** that came in with the knife and stuck it to your face has any money to compensate you?

Hence as dats right said, he's not a 'mark' for damages (money).

happyoutish

McCrack wrote: »

I mean do you really think the **** that came in with the knife and stuck it to your face has any money to compensate you?

That **** was not just that.. And yes this person actually has money!! its not just the scum of the street that will take a knife to someones face.. The well dressed, well educated are well capable to. You just never know these days...

I know Jo King was making fair points I suppose, the tone of the post was just a bit off putting!

Jo King

happyoutish wrote: »

And why shouldn't the perpetrator pay compensation??? They were the one who entered my office and stuck a knife in my face!! Why would my employer be responsible for someone else's actions??? Please explain

No offence Jo King but the tone of your post sounds like your in foul form!!! Late night?????

There is an outside chance your employer may have been negligent in not providing you with a safe place of work. It is not easy to hold an employer liable for the criminal acts of another. You would most likely have to show that your employer was aware of a threat to you and did nothing.
There is no reason why the perpetrator should not pay compensation other than the fact that he has no money. Most people who go around sticking knives into peoples faces are career criminals who have no assets.
Without giving legal advice, if the incident happened in 2006 you are not out of time to make a complaint to PIAB against the perpetrator and when PIAB decline to deal with it, pursue the perpetrator through the courts for assault.
Whether it is worth doing depends on what assets the perpetrator has to pay damages and costs.
I would guess that if the perpetrator had any kind of substantial assets pressure would have been put on him to make a payment on the hearing of the criminal case. Criminal cases are much more about punishing offenders and much less about compensating victims. On the facts you have given it is not known what the sentencing judge knew about the impact of the incident on you was, and what he knew of the personal circumstances of the victim.

I am not going to reply to your personal comments.