Description
The assumption that a person who had suffered a significant injury would be sufficiently curious to seek expert advice applied unless there were reasons why a reasonable person would not have done so.
The claimant appealed against a decision that his claim in respect of noise induced hearing loss was statute barred. He had been employed by the respondents between 1965 and 1979 in jobs that exposed him to very loud noise. He became aware of hearing difficulties and had actual knowledge of his symptoms in 2001. He did not consult his GP until 2006 and he maintained that it was not until he sought expert advice in 2009 that he knew his injury was attributable to noise exposure.
It was necessary to consider objectively whether the claimant could reasonably have been expected to seek expert advice. The respondents submitted that, following Adams v Bracknell Forest [2005] 1 AC 76, HL, anyone who had suffered a significant injury had to be assumed to be sufficiently curious that he would seek expert advice. The Court of Appeal held that whilst the test on claimants was a demanding one, the assumption only applied unless there were reasons why a reasonable person in the claimants position would not have sought expert advice.
A reasonable person in the claimant's position would have consulted his GP by the end of 2002. In the circumstances the claimant should be deemed to have had knowledge by the end of 2002 that his hearing loss might be attributable to noise exposure. The limitation period had expired by the end of 2005 and his claim was statute-barred.
