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: 2000 To: 2000

This page lists 33 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Webster v Cooper and Burnett [2000] PNLR 240
2000
CA

Professional Negligence, Limitation

1 Citers


 
Fenech v East London and City Health Authority [2000] Lloyd's Rep Med 35
2000
CA
Simon Brown LJ, Robert Walker LJ and Wilson J
Limitation
The court was asked how to set the time at which the claimant became fixed with knowledge of her injury. They 'found it unnecessary to attempt any final reconciliation, because 'on any sort of objective approach' the claimant should have made inquiries long before she did. '
Limitation Act 1980 14
1 Citers


 
Bristol and West Building Society v Baden Barnes and Groves [2000] Lloyd's Rep PN 788
2000
CA

Limitation, Land, Legal Professions, Professional Negligence
cw Proposed amendments to a plaintiff's pleadings failed to prevent a striking out. The amendments either sought to advance by a different route the earlier claim which was bound to fail, or sought to introduce a new cause of action which was statute barred and did not derive from the same, or substantially the same, facts.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Long v Tolchard and Sons Ltd Times, 05 January 2000
5 Jan 2000
CA

Limitation, Personal Injury
When a party requested a court to set aside the limitation period, he was under a high duty to disclose all relevant details. Where it turned out later that he had failed to disclose relevant aspects of his medical history, it was perfectly open to the court to revisit the original order and to re-instate the limitation period.
Limitation Act 1980 33, 11

 
Norman v Ali and Another, Norman v Aziz Gazette, 13 January 2000; Times, 25 February 2000
13 Jan 2000
CA

Limitation, Road Traffic, Personal Injury
The claimant sought damages following a road accident against an uninsured driver through the Motor Insurer's Bureau. The Bureau later required him to issue proceedings also against the car owner on the ground that he had permitted the driving. At first it was held the limitation period was six years for such a claim, but on appeal it was held that the words referring to a personal injury action in the Act were wide, and it was only required that the damages claimed arose in respect of personal injuries. The limitation period was three years.
Limitation Act 1980 11 - Uninsured Drivers Agreement 1988

 
Global Financial Recoveries Ltd v Jones Gazette, 13 January 2000; Times, 23 February 2000; [2000] BPIR 1029
13 Jan 2000
ChD

Limitation, Land, Banking, Limitation
The defendant entered into a mortgage loan. The property was repossessed and he faced an action for recovery of the shortfall. It was argued that the claim was out of time after six years. The court held that the debt remained a specialty debt and the twelve year period applied, but nevertheless, the actual claimant claimed under an assignment which had assigned only the personal element of the debt, but not the benefit of the covenant within the mortgage deed. An assignment of the debt alone operated to assign that debt, and not the right given under the mortgage, and so a claim under the assignment was limited as under contract.
Limitation Act 1980
1 Citers


 
Global Financial Recoveries Ltd v Jones Gazette, 13 January 2000; Times, 23 February 2000; [2000] BPIR 1029
13 Jan 2000
ChD

Limitation, Land, Banking, Limitation
The defendant entered into a mortgage loan. The property was repossessed and he faced an action for recovery of the shortfall. It was argued that the claim was out of time after six years. The court held that the debt remained a specialty debt and the twelve year period applied, but nevertheless, the actual claimant claimed under an assignment which had assigned only the personal element of the debt, but not the benefit of the covenant within the mortgage deed. An assignment of the debt alone operated to assign that debt, and not the right given under the mortgage, and so a claim under the assignment was limited as under contract.
Limitation Act 1980
1 Citers


 
Harris v Bolt Burdon (A Firm) [2000] EWCA Civ 3037; [2000] CP Rep 70; [2000] CPLR 9
2 Feb 2000
CA

Limitation, Professional Negligence, Litigation Practice
A case is suitable for striking out which raises an unwinnable case, where continuance of the proceedings is without any possible benefit and would waste resources on both sides.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Amerada Hess and Others v C W Rome and Others Gazette, 09 March 2000; Times, 15 March 2000
9 Mar 2000
QBD

Litigation Practice, Limitation
The claimants had served proceedings on an agent who did not have authority to accept such service. They sought, out of time, leave to re-serve correctly, and also to add an additional cause of action which whilst now outside the limitation period arose out of the same facts. Held: The first application was refused. The court could only so act if preconditions were met, particularly here that the claimant had acted promptly. He had not so acted, and the court had no discretion to allow the re-service. The application to amend was granted.

 
J A Pye and Another v Graham and Another Gazette, 17 February 2000; Gazette, 24 February 2000; Times, 14 March 2000; [2000] Ch 676; [2000] 3 All ER 865
14 Mar 2000
ChD
Neuberger J
Agriculture, Land, Limitation
The fact alone of being prepared to take a licence of land would not defeat an application for adverse possession, but a request for a licence would be relevant. The adverse possession commenced from the time when the licence expired, given that a sufficient animus was then established. The reference in the section to the taking of action did not apply to an application to warn off the cautions made to the Land Registry which was not a court, and the application was not an application to recover land. Since the Grahams enjoyed factual possession of the land from January 1984, and adverse possession took effect from September 1984, the applicant company's title was extinguished pursuant to the 1980 Act, and the Grahams were entitled to be registered as proprietors of the land. "[The Grahams] sought rights to graze or cut grass on the land after the summer of 1984, and were quite prepared to pay. When Pye failed to respond they did what any other farmer in their position would have done: they continued to farm the land. They were not at fault. But the result of Pye's inaction was that they enjoyed the full use of the land without payment for 12 years. As if that were not gain enough, they are then rewarded by obtaining title to this considerable area of valuable land without any obligation to compensate the former owner in any way at all. In the case of unregistered land, and in the days before registration became the norm, such a result could no doubt be justified as avoiding protracted uncertainty where the title to land lay. But where land is registered it is difficult to see any justification for a legal rule which compels such an apparently unjust result, and even harder to see why the party gaining title should not be required to pay some compensation at least to the party losing it. It is reassuring to learn that the Land Registration Act 2002 has addressed the risk that a registered owner may lose his title through inadvertence. But the main provisions of that Act have not yet been brought into effect, and even if they had it would not assist Pye, whose title had been lost before the passing of the Act. While I am satisfied that the appeal must be allowed for the reasons given by my noble and learned friend, this is a conclusion which I (like the judge [Neuberger J]...) 'arrive at with no enthusiasm'.”
Limitation Act 1980 15(1) 17
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Margolis v Imperial Tobacco Limited, Gallaher Limited, Hergall (In Liquidation) [2000] EWCA Civ 114; [2000] MLC 204
6 Apr 2000
CA

Negligence, Limitation
The court of appeal considered when it might interfere with the exercise of a judge's discretion to extend the limitation period. Held: The court "[will] not interfere with the judge's discretion unless it was exercised upon wrong principles, by reference to irrelevant matters or in disregard of matters which ought to have been taken into account. or unless it was plainly wrong."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Aylwen v Takla [2000] EWCA Civ 108
6 Apr 2000
CA

Landlord and Tenant, Limitation
The parties disputed ownership of a box room used with an apartment.
[ Bailii ]
 
BP Exploration Operating Co Ltd v Chevron Shipping Company and Chevron Tankers (Bermuda) Ltd and Chevron Transport Corporation [2000] ScotCS 105
13 Apr 2000
SCS
Lord Cowie and Lord President and Lord Sutherland
Limitation

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mortgage Corporation v Lambert and Co (A Firm) and Another Times, 24 April 2000; [2000] PNLR 820
24 Apr 2000
CA

Land, Limitation, Professional Negligence
If it was alleged that a lender could should have been aware of an overvaluation of a property so as to start the limitation clock, the owner must satisfy the court that it was reasonable at the time alleged for the lender have become obliged to obtain a retrospective valuation. That burden was not carried in this case.
Limitation Act 1980 14A(10)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Corbin v Penfold Metallising Co Ltd Gazette, 28 April 2000; Times, 02 May 2000; [2000] Lloyd's Rep Med 247
28 Apr 2000
CA

Limitation, Legal Professions
The claimant was diagnosed as suffering from an industrial disease. He instructed solicitors promptly, but they failed to issue within the limitation period. The claimant applied for the time to be lengthened to allow him to claim. The court exercised their discretion in his favour. The failings of his solicitors should not be visited upon him. He had acted with proper speed, had employed solicitors to get on with it. The delay of nearly six months was not excessive.
Limitation Act 1980 33
1 Citers


 
Raja v Lloyds Tsb Bank Plc Times, 16 May 2000
16 May 2000
ChD

Limitation, Professional Negligence
The obligation of a mortgagee having taken possession of a property to obtain a proper price, was an obligation due in equity, and not either under the contract for the loan or as associated with the speciality agreement giving the property in charge. Nevertheless the claim was akin to an action for damages for negligence, and the period of limitation governing the action was six years.
Limitation Act 1980 2

 
Robert Mark Gordon v J B Wheatley and Co (a Firm) Times, 06 June 2000; Gazette, 15 June 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 173; [2000] Lloyds LR PN 605
24 May 2000
CA
Kennedy LJ, Kay LJ
Damages, Limitation, Financial Services, Professional Negligence
The defendant solicitors had negligently advised the claimant in connection with a mortgage scheme he operated for customers. His case was that the defendants had negligently failed to advise him to register under s3 of the 1986 Act. The claimant had to underwrite his customers' losses because of his failure to register. The SIB began its investigation into the claimant's business less than six years before he brought his action against the defendants, and its obligation compensate arose within the limitation period. However, his claim against the defendants was held to be time-barred, because the claimant had first suffered actionable loss, and therefore his cause of action had accrued, when the first customer entered into the mortgage scheme. He claimed that ". . . actual loss is not the same as a serious risk of loss, and … that until at the earliest the claimant signed the Deed of Undertaking and Indemnity (which was within the six year period) there was no more than a serious risk of loss." Held: Kennedy LJ put the argument: "Forster's case there was immediate damage to a discernible asset, the plaintiff's equity of redemption, not merely a risk of damage to her assets as a whole." and rejected those submissions relyining on Milton -v- Walker & Stanger. "… it is necessary to identify the loss claimed, and to measure it against the duty allegedly breached. Here the breach of duty relied upon is an alleged failure to advise the claimant how to operate in such a way as not to be likely to attract adverse criticism for the SIB, in consequence of which negligence vulnerable transactions were made which were all completed before the beginning of the six year period, and before the SIB began to investigate."
Financial Services Act 1986 3 - Limitation Act 1980
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Batchelor v Marlow and Another Times, 07 June 2000; Gazette, 25 May 2000; Gazette, 08 June 2000; (2001) 82 P & CR 36
25 May 2000
ChD

Land, Road Traffic, Limitation
The applicant claimed parking rights as an easement. If an easement was capable of arising by virtue of a deed of grant, it could also be acquired by prescription. This was such an easement. Use in the absence of planning permission did not vitiate the acquisition by prescription, since the use did not become unlawful until a planning enforcement notice had been served.
1 Citers


 
London Borough of Hillingdon v ARC Limited (No 2) [2000] 3 EGLR 97; [2000] EWCA Civ 191
16 Jun 2000
CA
Arden, Waller, Swinton Thomas
Land, Limitation, Estoppel
The council entered upon land belonging to the company in accordance with the compulsory purchase procedures in 1982, but the company did not bring its claim for compensation until 1992. The council said the were out of time. Held: Section 9 applies to claims for compensation for compulsory purchase. The mere fact that a party has continued to negotiate with the other party about the claim after the limitation period had expired, without anything being agreed about what happens if the negotiations break down, cannot give rise to a waiver or estoppel.
Limitation Act 1980 9 - Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 11
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Thyssen Inc v Calypso Shipping Corp Sa [2000] EWHC B20 (Comm)
23 Jun 2000
ComC
David Steel J
Transport, Limitation
Application by the Claimants, who were receivers of a steel cargo, for a declaration that their claim against the Respondents, who were the owners of the carrying ship, is not time-barred. In the alternative, the Claimants seek an extension of time to commence arbitration proceedings pursuant to Section 12 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
[ Bailii ]
 
Bowers v Kennedy Times, 27 July 2000; [2000] ScotCS 178; [2000] ScotCS 179
28 Jun 2000
IHCS

Land, Limitation, Scotland
A landowner who had no alternative means of access to his land could not lose a right of way to it by a failure to use it. It was not a right of servitude, but rather an incident of the rights inherent as owner. The inapplicability of periods and rules of limitation in such cases was well established.
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Sniezek v Bundy (Letchworth) Limited; CA 7-Jul-2000 - [2000] EWCA Civ 212; [2000] PIQR P213
 
Gregson v Channel Four Television Corporation Times, 24 August 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 214
11 Jul 2000
CA

Litigation Practice, Limitation
It was possible to amend pleadings outside of the limitation period, where the alteration to identify the correct party was genuine and the mistake had not mislead any party. In this case there was no reasonable doubt about who had been intended to be sued. The overriding objective and rule 17.4(3) could either be applied to allow the amendment.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Companhia De Seguros Imperio v Heath (REBX) Ltd and Others Times, 26 September 2000; [2001] 1 WLR 112; [2000] EWCA Civ 219
20 Jul 2000
CA
Waller LJ
Equity, Limitation
Although a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, as a claim in equity, was not subject to the same limitation periods imposed by the Act as claims in tort or contract, a court exercising an equitable jurisdiction should apply similar periods under the equitable principle of acquiescence. A six year limitation period should be applied by analogy to a claim for equitable compensation for dishonest breach of fiduciary duty by an underwriter. Claims against the underwriter in contract and tort based on the same facts were statute barred under sections 2 and 5 of the 1980 Act. More than six years had expired since the accrual of the cause of action. The analogy of the six year time limit for claims in contract and tort would have been applied by a court of equity before 1 July 1940 to the claim for breach of fiduciary duty.
Limitation Act 1980 2 5
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Kathleen Magaret Oakes v Mr P W Hopcroft [2000] EWCA Civ 237; [2000] Lloyd's Rep Med 394
27 Jul 2000
CA

Professional Negligence, Limitation
The claimant needed correct medical advice and legal advice before she knew that she had settled her original personal injury claim at too low a figure.
Limitation Act 1980 14A
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Rahman v Sterling Credit Ltd Times, 17 October 2000; Gazette, 17 August 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 222; [2001] 1 WLR 496
17 Oct 2000
CA
Simon Brown and Mummery LJJ
Land, Limitation, Consumer
A lender sought repossession of a property securing a loan from 1998. The borrower sought to assert that the loan was an extortionate credit bargain under the Act. The lender asserted that that claim was out of time. Held: A claim under a statute was an action upon a specialty, and that accordingly the limitation period applicable was twelve years, and the order was to stand.
Consumer Credit Act 1974 - Limitation Act 1980
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 In Re A Debtor (2672 of 2000); ChD 2-Nov-2000 - Gazette, 02 November 2000; Times, 05 December 2000
 
Markfield Investments Ltd v Evans [2000] EWCA Civ 281; [2001] 1 WLR 1321
9 Nov 2000
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown Lord Justice Mummery And Lord Justice Latham
Land, Limitation
The claimants were paper owners of land occupied by the defendant. The claimant said the acquiescence had been interrupted by an abortive court action by the claimant's predecessor in title. Held: With regard to any particular action the relevant time, and the only relevant time, for consideration of adverse possession is that which has expired before such action is brought. A letter and separate action could not found a claim. Appeal dismissed.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Peacock and Another v Custins and Another Gazette, 15 December 2000; Times, 15 December 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 1958; [2001] 2 All ER 827; [2002] 1 WLR 1815
14 Nov 2000
CA
Schiemann, Mance LJJ, Smith J
Land, Limitation
The conveyance of a field constituting the dominant land to the claimants was expressed to be subject to the benefit of a right of way over land owned by the defendants, enabling the claimants to reach the dominant land "at all times and for all purposes in connection with the use and enjoyment of the property hereby conveyed". The purchaser came to farm the purchased field as one unit with another field, and sought a declaration that the right of way was for the benefit of both fields. Held: In construing such a grant the court was concerned with the identity of the land, and purpose of the grant, not with the extent of its use. Nevertheless, the declaration sought to identify different land and must not be granted.
Schiemann LJ said: "where a court is being asked to declare whether the right to use a way comprises a right to use it to facilitate the cultivation of land other than the dominant tenement, the court is not concerned with any comparison between the amount of use made or to be made of the servient tenement and the amount of use made or that might lawfully be made within the scope of the grant. It is concerned with declaring the scope of the grant, having regard to its purposes and the identity of the dominant tenement. The authorities indicate that the burden on the owner of the servient tenement is not to be increased without his consent. But burden in this context does not refer to the number of journeys or the weight of the vehicles. Any use of the way is, in contemplation of law, a burden and one must ask whether the grantor agreed to the grantee making use of the way for that purpose all three judges (in Harris) were addressing not the question of additional user, but the different question: whether the white land was being used for purposes which were not merely adjuncts to the honest use of the pink land (the dominant tenement); or, rephrasing the same question, whether the way was being used for the purposes of the white land as well as the dominant tenement.
It is in our judgment clear that the grantor did not authorise the use of the way for the purpose of cultivating the blue land. This can not sensibly be described as ancillary to the cultivation of [Whiteacre]."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina v City of Sunderland, ex parte Beresford; Admn 14-Nov-2000 - Times, 16 January 2001; [2000] EWHC Admin 418; [2001] 1 WLR 1327
 
Fraser and Another v Canterbury Diocesan Board Of Finance (No 1) Times, 09 January 2001; Gazette, 25 January 2001; [2001] Ch 669; [2000] EWCA Civ 460
24 Nov 2000
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Latham
Education, Land, Limitation, Land
A grant of land was made under the 1841 Act in 1872 (after the 1870 Act) and the school had in 1874 been transferred to a school board under section 23 of the 1870 Act. The school closed permanently in 1992. The issue was whether reverter had occurred in 1874, with the result that the claim of those interested under the reverter had long since become statute barred. The original grant under the 1841 Act followed the National Society standard form.
School Sites Act 1841
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame (No 7) Gazette, 22 March 2001; Times, 10 January 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 942
27 Nov 2000
TCC
His Honour Judge John Toulmin Cmg Qc
Limitation, European
Breaches of articles in the European Treaty by the UK government were tortious in nature, and the appropriate limitation period for claiming was governed by section 2 (six years). The government had failed to allow European fishing vessels into its waters, and had made itself liable for damages. Once this became clear, applicants sought to add new heads of losses, and other parties sought to add their claims. They were however to be prevented from doing so, being out of time.
Limitation Act 1980 2
1 Citers


 
Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Lambeth v George Bigden and Others [2000] EWCA Civ 302; (2001) 33 HLR 43
1 Dec 2000
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown Lord Justice Mummery And Lord Justice Latham
Registered Land, Limitation
A block of flats had been occupied over several years by a succession of squatters. The present occupiers appealed an order for possession, and the authority appealed refusal of possession for other flats. The occupiers asserted possessory title. Held: The earlier occupiers had sought licences from the authority, and had submitted petitions. The letters and petitions constituted an acknowledgment of the authority's title, and the claims for adverse possession failed.
Land Registration Act 1925 75
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.