148. We here partly recapitulate, and partly add to, the recommendations of this report.

149. Three principal areas for reform have been examined. They are, first, the lack of uniformity now existing in periods of limitation affecting actions for damages for personal injuries; second, the inconsistencies in, and questionable merits of, limitation protections operating to protect public authorities; and, third, the variable and discriminatory procedure prescribed for pursuing claims against public authorities.

150. We recommend that the first of these matters be reformed by ,the addition of a new section 14B to the Limitation Act, 1969, subsection (1) of which would impose a general limitation period of three years in actions for damages for personal injuries (see Appendix D).

151. We further recommend -that the second and -third matters be met by amendment of the relative statutes. The amendments we propose are set out in the Schedule to the draft Bill in Appendix E. Their effect would be to relegate actions against public authorities to the periods of limitation laid down in Division 2 of Part II of the Limitation Act, 1969. Taken with the changes proposed by the draft Bill in Appendix E there would also be an abolition of special requirements for notice of action and of special privileges to make tender of amends. An parties, whether private litigants or public authorities, would then be on an equal footing so far as concerns this aspect of the limitation of actions.

152. We recommend the enactment of legislation to the effect of the draft Bills contained in Appendix D and Appendix E: and we further recommend that Rules of Court be made to deal with the matters referred to in paragraph 133 of this report.


C. L. D. MEARES
Chairman.

R. D. CONACHER
Deputy Chairman.

12th May, 1975.