swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Limitation - From: 1994 To: 1994
This page lists 14 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Clark v McLean; IHCS 1994 - 1994 SC 410
McCabe v McLellan 1994 SC 87
1994
IHCS
Lord President Hope
Scotland, Limitation
An action of professional negligence was brought against two doctors for alleged negligence when the pursuer was a young child. He was 18 in 1986 and raised an action against the first defender within the triennium provided for in section 17(4) of the 1973 Act. When the action was raised he understood that the second defender had died but when he discovered that the second defender was, in fact, still alive he brought him into the action one month after the expiry of the triennium. Held: "The discretion which is to be exercised under section 19A(1) has been said to be unfettered, and it is necessary to balance all the circumstances of the case and also the interests of all parties concerned . . It is for the pursuer to satisfy us that it would be equitable to allow him to proceed with his action . ."
1 Citers
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council [1994] 4 All ER 972
1994
ChD
Hobhouse J
Equity, Limitation
A claim for money had and received fell within section 5 Limitation Act, should be treated with caution. Hobhouse J said: "The cause of action in money had and received arises when the relevant money is paid by the plaintiff to the defendant."
As to the general claim for recovery after unjust enrichment: "The position is therefore that if a plaintiff is entitled to a proprietary remedy against a defendant who has been unjustly enriched, the court may but is not bound to order the repayment of the sum with compound interest. If on the other hand the plaintiff is only entitled to a personal remedy which will be the case where, although there was initially a fiduciary relationship and the payer was entitled in equity to treat the sum received by the payee as his, the payer's, money and trace it, but because of subsequent developments he is no longer able to trace the sum in the hands of the payee, then there is no subject matter to which the rationale on which the compound interest is awarded can be applied. The payee cannot be shown to have a fund belonging to the payer or to have used it to make profits for himself. The legal analysis which is the basis of the award of compound interest is not applicable. (It is possible that in some cases there might be an intermediate position where it could be demonstrated that the fiduciary had, over part of the period, profited from holding a fund as a fiduciary even though he no longer held the fund at the date of trial and that in such a case the court might make some order equivalent to requiring him to account for those profits; but that is not the situation which I am asked to consider in the present case.)"
Limitation Act 1980 5
1 Citers
Hughes v Cook and Another; CA 14-Feb-1994 - Ind Summary, 21 March 1994
Welsh Development Agency v Redpath Dorman Long Ltd; CA 4-Apr-1994 - Gazette, 01 June 1994; Ind Summary, 02 May 1994; Times, 04 April 1994; [1994] 1 WLR 1409; [1994] 4 All ER 10
Dobbie v Medway Health Authority; CA 11-May-1994 - Ind Summary, 06 June 1994; Times, 18 May 1994; [1994] 1 WLR 1234; 1994 5 MEDLR 160; [1994] EWCA Civ 13; [1994] 4 All ER 450; [1994] PIQR 353
Yates v Thakeham Tiles Ltd Times, 19 May 1994; [1995] PIQR 135
19 May 1994
CA
Limitation
Appeals against a judge's use of his judicial discretion exercised on the extension of time for commencement of proceedings will succeed only with difficulty.
Limitation Act 1980 33(1)(a)
1 Citers
Sion v Hampstead Health Authority; CA 27-May-1994 - Times, 10 June 1994; [1994] 5 Med LR 170; [1994] EWCA Civ 26
Sheldon and Others v R H Outhwaite (Underwriting Agencies) Ltd and Others Times, 01 July 1994; Independent, 08 July 1994
1 Jul 1994
CA
Limitation
Concealment by Defendant after the event does not stop time running against Plaintiff.
Limitation Act 1980 32(1)(b)
1 Cites
1 Citers
Arbuthnot and Others v Fagan and Feltring Underwriting Agencies Ltd and Others Times, 26 July 1994; Independent, 03 August 1994
26 Jul 1994
HL
Lord Diplock
Negligence, Limitation
A relationship in contract does not negative a duty of care between the parties. A plaintiff with a choice of action either in contract or in negligence can choose his remedy, and the limitation period with which it is associated.
1 Cites
Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim and Others (Number 9); ChD 29-Jul-1994 - Times, 11 October 1994; [1994] CLY 3555
Hopkins v Mackenzie Times, 03 November 1994; Independent, 27 October 1994; Gazette, 07 December 1994; [1995] PIQR 43
27 Oct 1994
CA
Hobhouse LJ
Professional Negligence, Professional Negligence, Limitation, Legal Professions
A loss arising from a solicitor's failure to pursue a case arose only when the claim was struck out, not earlier when compromised, and even though value already diminished. Accordingly the limitation period began to run from that time.
Limitation Act 1980
1 Citers
S v W [1994] EWCA Civ 35; [1995] 3 FCR 649; [1995] 1 FLR 862
28 Nov 1994
CA
Torts - Other, Limitation
Appeal against extension of time to bring allegations of sexual abuse from childhood.
[ Bailii ]
Customs and Excise Commissioners v Le Rififi Ltd Times, 14 December 1994; Gazette, 15 February 1995
14 Dec 1994
CA
VAT, Limitation
One paper assessment covering several tax periods need always not be treated as just one assessment. This was a question of fact to be decided on the particular circumstances.
Finance Act 1985 22(1)
1 Cites
