Lord Denning MR discussed the meaing of ‘fraud’ in the section: ‘The word ‘fraud’ is not used in the common law sense. It is used in the equitable sense to denote conduct by the defendant or its agent such that it would be ‘against conscience’ for him to avail himself of the lapse of time. The cases show that, if a man knowingly commits a wrong . . ; or a breach of contract . . , in such circumstances that it is unlikely to be found out for many a long day, he cannot rely upon the Statute of Limitations as a bar to the claim: . . In order to show that he ‘concealed’ the right of action ‘by fraud,’ it is not necessary to show that he took active steps to conceal his wrong-doing or breach of contract. It is sufficient that he knowingly committed it and did not tell the owner anything about it . . If the defendant was, however, quite unaware that he was committing a wrong or a breach of contract . . then he could avail himself of the Statute of Limitations.’
Judges:
Lord Denning MR
Citations:
[1973] 1 WLR 29
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – James Brocklesby v Armitage and Guest (a Firm) CA 9-Jul-1999
A failure by an adviser to make his position clear when he thought he had been negligent, could constitute a ‘deliberate’ act within section 32 even if the defendant’s actions were not motivated by any intention to deceive the claimant: ‘it is not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Limitation
Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.263184
