Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

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: 1995 To: 1995

This page lists 18 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Whitfield v North Durham Health Authority [1995] 6 Med LR 32; [1995] PIQR 361
1995
CA
Waite LJ
Limitation, Professional Negligence
In 1987, and before the claim was issued in 1992 the claimant had issued a claim which had never been served. She sought to extend the limitation period arguing that she had not acquired the requisite knowledge until later, Held: She had had the requisite knowledge in 1985.
Waite LJ observed that her issue of the claim in 1987 did not necessarily betoken that she had knowledge under section 14(1), saying also: "The court should look to the essence of the matter and enquire how far the plaintiff had knowledge in broad terms of the facts on which it is based" and "In a discretionary jurisdiction where the court is required to have regard to ´all the circumstances of the case' it would clearly be inappropriate to look for hard and fast rules, but counsel were agreed in this court that the section must be read as incorporating one underlying principle. In the process of assessing equity and balancing prejudice which the section enjoins, a party's action or inaction cannot be divorced from the acts or omissions of his legal representative. The principle in that respect is analogous to that applying in cases of striking out for want of prosecution."
Limitation Act 1980 14(1)
1 Citers


 
Seymour v Williams [1995] PIQR P470
1995
CA
Russell LJ, Millett LJ and Sir Ralph Gibson
Personal Injury, Limitation
The plaintiff issued proceedings against her father and mother, alleging physical and sexual abuse against her father and want of parental care against her mother. The claim against the father was in trespass, but that against her mother was in negligence. Held: The claim against the father was governed by the six years limitation period, and that against the mother by the three year limitation period. Both were out of time, but the Act gave discretion to extend the three year limited claim in negligence. The Court found this anomalous, and invited the Law Commission to consider the anomaly that different periods of limitation apply to a claim against a perpetrator of abuse and to a claim against someone for negligently failing to prevent that abuse with only the latter having a potential extension.
Limitation Act 1980 11
1 Citers



 
 Hallam-Eames and Others v Merrett Syndicates Ltd and Others; CA 25-Jan-1995 - Independent, 25 January 1995; Times, 25 January 1995; [2001] Lloyd's Rep PN 178; [1995] 7 Med LR 122

 
 First National Comercial Bank plc v Humberts; CA 27-Jan-1995 - Times, 27 January 1995; Independent, 14 February 1995; [1995] 2 All ER 673
 
Barrand v British Cellophane Plc Times, 16 February 1995
16 Feb 1995
CA

Limitation
Allowing an action to continue after the limitation period was not same as a striking out.
Limitation Act 1980 33

 
Robinson v Adair Times, 02 March 1995
2 Mar 1995
QBD
Dyson J
Land, Limitation
The Truro Crown Court had allowed Mr Adair's appeal against his conviction for obstructing a highway. The prosecutor appealed. Held: It had to be decided whether a particular road had become by presumed dedication a public highway. The use relied on constituted an offence under section 34(1) of the 1988 Act. A claim of long user which was based upon acts prohibited by statute cannot found a claim for a public right of way. The court could see no rational distinction between acquisition of a private easement by presumed grant after long illegal user and the presumed dedication of a highway after long illegal user.
Highways Act 1980 137 - Road Traffic Act 1988 34(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Jameson and Wyatt (Executors of the Estate of David Allen Jameson) v Central Electricity Generating Board and Babcock Energy Limited Unreported, 10 March 1995
10 Mar 1995

Tudor Evans J
Personal Injury, Limitation
The plaintiff claimed damages for mesothelioma. CEGB had provided a contractual indemnity in respect of damage or injury occurring before building works were taken over by a client in 1960. The question was whether a workman who died from mesothelioma well after 1960 but was exposed during the building work before 1960 had suffered damage or injury before 1960. Held: The evidence did not establish even that minimal microscopic changes had occurred before 1960 and that the damage or injury occurred many years after the deceased had finished working.
1 Citers


 
Lodge (T/A JD Lodge) v Wakefield Metropolitan Council [1995] EWCA Civ 41; [1995] 38 EG 136; [1995] EGCS 51; [1995] 2 EGLR 124
21 Mar 1995
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Limitation
The plaintiff had formerly been a tenant of the defendant under an informal tenancy. No rent had been paid since 1974. He claimed to have acquired the land by adverse possession. He gave evidence at trial that if he had been asked to pay rent at any time before the twelve years were completed, he would have done so. Held: A tenant in possession was during the subsistence of the tenancy entitled to exclude from the land the world at large, including the landlord. The squatter necessarily had the requisite mental intention of possessing the property for the purpose of adverse possession.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Sheldon and Others v R H M Outhwaite (Underwriting Agencies) Ltd and Others Times, 05 May 1995; Gazette, 07 June 1995; Independent, 09 May 1995; [1996] 1 AC 102
5 May 1995
HL
Lord Browne-Wilkinson
Limitation
The limitation period did not run whilst relevant facts were deliberately concealed after the damage had been concealed. Section 32 could apply where the concealment of the relevant fact took place after the event as well as at the time of it. The section was intended 'to ensure that the Act does not operate to bar the claim of a plaintiff whose ignorance of the relevant facts is due to the improper actions of the defendant.'
Limitation Act 1932 11(1)(b) 32(1)(b)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Re Farmizer (Products) Ltd Ind Summary, 19 June 1995; [1997] 1 BCLC 589
19 Jun 1995
ChD

Limitation, Insolvency
The limitation period for an action for wrongful trading under insolvency legislation is six years. Where the statute relied upon enables the court to give relief in monetary or non-monetary form the court should look to see what is actually claimed
Insolvency Act 1986 214 - Limitation Act 1980 9(1)
1 Citers



 
 Walkin v South Manchester Health Authority; CA 3-Jul-1995 - Times, 03 July 1995; [1995] 1WLR 1543
 
Crocker v British Coal Corporation Times, 05 July 1995
5 Jul 1995
QBD

Limitation
Burden is on the plaintiff to show when time began in personal injuries action.
Limitation Act 1980 11

 
Industrie Chimiche, Italia Centrale and Another v Alexander G Tsavliris and Sons Etc Ind Summary, 04 September 1995; Times, 08 August 1995; [1996] 1 WLR 774; [1996] 1 All ER 114; [1995] 2 Lloyd's Rep 608
19 Jul 1995
ComC
Mance J
Litigation Practice, Limitation
Procedure - RSC Order 20 r.5 - amendment with leave - mistake - mistake as to identity of person intending to sue - mistake as to name of that party - distinction - Procedure- RSC Order 20 r.5(3) - amendment with leave - discretion - RSC Order 6 r.8(1) - validity of writ - 4 months - RSC Order 11 r.1(1) - leave to serve outside jurisdiction - validity of writ - 6 months - admiralty action in personam - RSC Order 75 r.4(4) - exclusion of RSC Order 11 r.1(2) -meaning - Procedure - privilege - deployment of court material otherwise privileged - principles - application at interlocutory stage - fairness - disclosure of part of privileged document - waiver of privilege with respect to other parts - Procedure - substitution of parties - RSC Order 15 r.7 - outside limitation period
A new party can be added outside the limitation period for that party if the writ was served within time. An interest can be transferred from one party to another if the time limit is relevant. In all situations of such "everyday occurrences as death of one or other party, bankruptcy leading to assignment to a trustee in bankruptcy, assignment, transmission or devolution of interest ... of which death was only the most striking, it seemed self-evident both that any existing proceedings, properly constituted within the limitation period, should be allowed to continue for or against the party to whom the relevant right or obligation had been transferred in law; and that that should be permitted whether the transfer occurred before or after the expiry of the limitation period. The underlying rationale of limitation periods, to protect against stale claims which should have been brought earlier, had no application to this type of case."
Rules of the Supreme Court Order 15 r7
1 Citers


 
Wilson v Le Fevre Wood and Royle Independent, 12 October 1995
12 Oct 1995
CA

Limitation
Knowledge of the cause of action was sufficiently established by the seeking of professional advice, to set the limitation period running. The act of making the request indicated a sufficient awareness.
Limitation Act 1980 14A-5

 
Wrightson v AOC International Limited 20 October 1995, unreported
20 Oct 1995

Lord Gill
Scotland, Limitation
A preliminary proof was allowed before answer on the matters raised by the parties under section 19A as he considered that there should be an inquiry into specific material facts on which the parties were not agreed. These related to the pursuer's prospects of success against his former English solicitors or counsel and his former Scottish solicitors, as well as the extent to which he would suffer inconvenience and delay in prosecuting an action against any of his previous advisers, even if he did have good prospects of success.
1 Citers


 
Yorkshire Regional Health Authority v Fairclough Building Ltd and Another Ind Summary, 27 November 1995; Times, 16 November 1995; [1996] 1 All ER 519; [1996] 1 WLR 210
16 Nov 1995
CA
Millett LJ
Limitation
The substitution of a successor party to a claim does not constitute a new claim for limitation purposes. Millett LJ considered the objects of the 1980 Act: "The 1980 Act was enacted in order to implement the recommendations of the Twenty-First Report of the Law Reform Committee (Final Report on Limitation of Actions) (Cmnd 6923) (1977). The dichotomy between amendments to existing proceedings which involved the addition or substitution of new parties and those which did not is to be found in the committee's recommendations. The committee recommended that no change was required in the rules which enabled a new cause of action to be added out of time (a reference to Ord 20, r 5); that a minor amendment be made to allow a change in capacity to be made out of time (which required an amendment to Ord 20, r 5(4)); and that the rulemaking powers of the Supreme Court and County Court committees should be enlarged so as to confer power to enable parties to be added out of time in five specific cases which the committee had identified (which led to the addition of paras (4) to (6) to Ord 15, r 6). The purpose of these recommendations was to allow a limited number of amendments to existing proceedings to be made after the expiry of the limitation period which could not have been made before. They were not intended to deprive the court of any existing power to allow amendments after the expiry of the limitation period, nor were they intended to cover amendments which, though made after the expiry of the limitation period, were not statute-barred. It would have been completely outside the committee's terms of reference to make any recommendation of the latter kind."
Limitation Act 1980 35 (2)
1 Citers


 
Romain and Another v Scuba Tv Ltd and Others Times, 22 November 1995
22 Nov 1995
CA

Limitation
Limitation period for claims for rent against guarantor under seal is six years.
Limitation Act 1980 19


 
 Nelson v Rye and Another; ChD 5-Dec-1995 - Times, 05 December 1995; [1996] 1 WLR 1378
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.