Podcast Location:
Download it here [file size: 20.9 MB]
Categories:
Personal Injury
CPD Points:
Up to 1 point. details »

Due to the difference in guidelines between the SRA and the Bar Standards Board, CPD points are awarded differently for Solicitors, Barristers and Legal Executives:

Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Regulated by the Bar Standards Board:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 accredited CPD point (60 minutes)

Regulated by ILEX:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Cost:
  • FREE
Length:
30 minutes of audio
(+ optional 5 minute online quiz)
Plays on Computer:
Yes Downloadable as MP3:    Yes
Contributor(s):
Course Aims:

This podcast provides a useful update to practitioners in all areas on a case that has been widely reported in the media. It is particularly useful to practitioners in personal injury of all levels of experience.

Outcomes:
After completing the course you will:
  • Have received an update on the recent House of Lords case, A v Hoare;
  • Understand the issues involved in the case and the changes made to the previous law in the area;
  • Understand the potential impact that this decision will have on future personal injury cases in general;
  • Understand the impact that this decision will have on future sexual abuse cases.
Level:
Intermediate Difficulty: 3 of 5
Classification:
Case Update
Sources and References:
  • Human Rights Act 1998;
  • Limitation Act 1980;
  • Law Commission Consultation Paper No 151 paragraphs 13.17-13.37; Limitation of Actions (2001) (Law Com. No 270) paragraphs 4.23-4.29;
  • A v Hoare [2008] UKHL 6;
  • Stubbings v Webb [1993]AC 498;
  • Trotman v North Yorkshire C.C. [1999] LGR 584;
  • Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2002] 1 AC 215;
  • S v W (Child Abuse: Damages) [1995] 1 FLR 862;
  • Clark v Chief Constable of Essex [2006] EWHC 2290 (QB);
  • Mattis v Pollock [2003]EWCA Civ 887;
  • KR v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd [2003] QB 1441;
  • Young v South Tyneside MBC [2007] QB 932;
  • Adams v Bracknell Forest Borough Council [2005] 1 AC 76;
  • McCafferty v Metropolitan Police District Receiver [1977] 1 WLR 1073;
  • Wilkinson v Ancliff (BLT) [1986] 1 WLR 1352;
  • Horton v Sadler [2007]1 AC 307;
  • Dobbie v Medway Health Authority [1994] 1 WLR 1234;
  • Forbes v Wandsworth Health Authority [1997] QB 402;
  • Spargo v North Essex District Health Authority [1997] PIQR P235;
  • McHugh v Gray [2006] EWHC 1968 QB;
  • McCoubrey v Ministry of Defence [2007] 1WLR 1544;
  • Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Mackie [2007] EWCA Civ 642;
  • Kew v Bettamix Ltd and others [[2006] EWCA Civ 1535.

The recent case of A v Hoare in the House of Lords concerning a claim made against a lottery winner who had attempted to rape the claimant many years before, attracted widespread media attention. On appeal to the House of Lords with five other cases concerning claims of sexual abuse, the main issue to be decided was the relevant limitation period to be applied. In this podcast, Stuart Brown QC and Rosalind Coe discuss the decision reached by the House and comment on the other issues raised in the appeal.

Podcast Added: 13/3/2008

Podcast last reviewed: 2011-06-27

Start this CPDcast Activity

© CPDcast.com