Where neither an infant claimant nor the claimant's parent bears any responsibility for the failure to commence proceedings within time under the Motor Accidents Act 1988, and the delay is caused solely by the solicitor's misapprehension of the limitation period, the explanation will be satisfactory within s40(2) regardless of whether the 'reasonable person in the position of the claimant' test focuses on the claimant alone or includes the parent. A solicitor's ignorance of the applicable limitation period is not properly characterised as a want of 'forensic diligence' where the solicitor otherwise attended to the general preparation of the case. The question whether the 'full and satisfactory explanation' determination is discretionary (governed by House v The King) or a normative judgment remains unresolved at High Court level.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.