ct 2007, states that a solicitor cannot act for two or more clients where there is a conflict of interest between them or a significant risk of such a conflict arising. Conflict of interest would arise in case the firm is responsible for the case of both the parties that is Mr. Bragg or Mr. Johnson in relation to the RAT or any related matter. A check should therefore be carried out and assured that the firm is not representing Mr. Johnson either in this case or any other case as a matter of fact.1 But from the file it looks that there is no conflict of interest and a note to this extent will be made in the file.
Section 24 A (2) of the Limitation Act lays down the limitation period for claims for damages for personal injuries arising out of negligence, nuisance or breach of duty. The limitation period is the later of:
In this case the accident took place on 12th April 2007 and based on Section 11(4) Chapter 58 of the Limitation Act 1980 (as amended by the Latent damage Act 1986) the time for calculation of the limitation period began to run from the date the accident took place. The limitation period for this accident is 12th April 20102. Thus Mr.Bragg can be given an assurance that he still is within the limitation period to make the claim. After the file is studied properly it is clear that there is very little time on hand for the limitation period 3 within which the procedure has to be started. But there is no evidence in the file with regard to the fact that any application is made to the court4 for extension of the limitation period so that the documents and other evidences supporting the case can be accumulated. Also time is required to carry out the pre-action protocols with regard to the personal injury claim. In the event the claim is barred by the statute and refusal on the part of the court for extension of the limitation period then under such circumstances the client can sue the firm for negligence on its part.
The driver Mr. B. Johnson was