Tag: Limitation

Siddiqui v University of Oxford: QBD 5 Dec 2016

The University applied to have struck out the claim by the claimant for damages alleging negligence in its teaching leading to a lower class degree than he said he should have been awarded.
Held: Strike out on the basis that the claim was bound to fail was refused. Nor was the claim bound to fail under limitation difficulties. Application refused

Judges:

Kerr J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 3150 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 14(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – E D and F Man Liquid Products Ltd v Patel and Another CA 4-Apr-2003
The rules contained two occasions on which a court would consider dismissal of a claim as having ‘no real prospect’ of success.
Held: The only significant difference between CPR 24.2 and 13.3(1), is that under the first the overall burden of . .
Cited – Clark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside CA 14-Apr-2000
A student had been failed after being falsely accused of cheating, but the academic review board, on remarking the paper marked it as zero.
Held: Where a University did not have the supervisory jurisdiction of a visitor, a breach of contract . .
Cited – Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council; Anderton v Clwyd County Council; Gower v Bromley London Borough Council; Jarvis v Hampshire County Council HL 28-Jul-2000
The plaintiffs each complained of negligent decisions in his or her education made by the defendant local authorities. In three of them the Court of Appeal had struck out the plaintiff’s claim and in only one had it been allowed to proceed.
Cited – Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee QBD 1957
Professional to use Skilled Persons Ordinary Care
Negligence was alleged against a doctor.
Held: McNair J directed the jury: ‘Where some special skill is exercised, the test for negligence is not the test of the man on the Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test . .
Cited – Abramova v Oxford Institute of Legal Practice QBD 18-Mar-2011
The claimant sought damages saying that the defendant had failed to provide her with the Legal Practice Course promised. The complaints included, in particular, an attack on the practice of having students mark their own mock examination papers.
Cited – Winstanley v Sleeman and Another QBD 13-Dec-2013
The claimant’s PhD thesis had initially failed, but on an internal appeal that decision was reversed, the appellate body accepting the contention that the supervision or other arrangements during his period of study had been unsatisfactory. The . .
Cited – Spargo v North Essex District Health Authority CA 13-Mar-1997
The test of ‘When a plaintiff became aware of the cause of an injury’ is a subjective test of what passed through plaintiff’s mind. ‘(1) the knowledge required to satisfy s14(1)(b) is a broad knowledge of the essence of the causally relevant act or . .
Cited – Ministry of Defence v AB and Others SC 14-Mar-2012
The respondent Ministry had, in 1958, conducted experimental atmospheric explosions of atomic weapons. The claimants had been obliged as servicemen to observe the explosions, and appealed against dismissal of their claims for radiation sickness . .
Cited – Cave v Robinson Jarvis and Rolf (a Firm) HL 25-Apr-2002
An action for negligence against a solicitor was defended by saying that the claim was out of time. The claimant responded that the solicitor had not told him of the circumstances which would lead to the claim, and that deliberate concealment should . .
See Also – Siddiqui v University of Oxford QBD 2016
Kerr J refused an application for him to recuse himself based inter alia on the fact that counsel for the Defendant before him was a member of his former chambers: ‘It is true that I was a member of the same chambers of Mr Milford until June 2015. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Siddiqui v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of The University of Oxford QBD 7-Feb-2018
. .
See Also – Siddiqui v University of Oxford QBD 16-Mar-2018
Post judgment issues . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Education, Litigation Practice, Limitation

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.572350

Re A Debtor: 1977

Corporate insolvency proceedings based on a statutory demand for monies due under a previous judgment are an ‘action on a judgment’ within s 24 rather than a method of enforcing or executing the judgment. They are barred by s 24 if brought more than six years after the judgment was obtained. S 24(1) of the 1980 Act bars after six years rights of action including proceedings in the form of bankruptcy proceedings, based on an earlier judgment.

Judges:

HHJ Paul Baker QC

Citations:

[1977] Ch 310

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 24(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – E D and F Man (Sugar) Ltd v Haryanto ChD 24-Nov-1995
Enforcement by judgment on co-ordinate jurisdiction judgment is discretionary: ‘ . . having regard to the decision in Re A Debtor [1977] Ch 310 that s 24(1) of the 1980 Act bars after six years rights of action including proceedings in the form of . .
Cited – Bennett v The Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland CA 23-Jul-2004
The bank had obtained judgment against the defendant, but had failed to act upon it, and the judgment became unenforceable. It then began later proceedings on the original debt (still within the applicable limitation period). The defendant said this . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.199356

Hallam-Eames and Others v Merrett Syndicates Ltd and Others: CA 25 Jan 1995

Members of Lloyd’s who faced re-insurance underwriting liabilities alleged negligence on the part of the active underwriter, their members’ agents and their syndicates’ managing agents. Limitation defences were raised.
Held: Mere knowledge of the damage of which complaint is later made, is not sufficient to start time running. Hoffmann LJ emphasised the statutory words ‘attributable . . to the act or omission which is alleged to constitute negligence’ and explained: ‘In other words the act or omission of which the plaintiff must have knowledge must be that which is causally relevant for the purposes of an allegation of negligence . . It is this idea of causal relevance which various judges of this court have tried to express by saying the plaintiff must know ‘the essence of the act or omission to which the injury is attributable’ (Purchas LJ in Nash v Eli Lilly and Co [1993] 1WLR 782 at 799) or ‘the essential thrust of the case’ (Sir Thomas Bingham M.R. in Dobbie [1994] 1WLR 1238) or that ‘one should look at the way the plaintiff puts his case, distil what he is complaining about and ask whether he had in broad terms knowledge of the facts on which that complaint is based’ (Hoffmann LJ in Broadley [1993] 4 Med LR 328, 332)’.

Judges:

Hoffmann LJ

Citations:

Independent 25-Jan-1995, Times 25-Jan-1995, [2001] Lloyd’s Rep PN 178, [1995] 7 Med LR 122

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 14A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Haward and others v Fawcetts HL 1-Mar-2006
The claimant sought damages from his accountants, claiming negligence. The accountants pleaded limitation. They had advised him in connection with an investment in a company which investment went wrong.
Held: It was argued that the limitation . .
Cited – Smith v Leicestershire Health Authority CA 29-Jan-1998
The plaintiff appealed a finding that she had sufficient knowledge of her possible claim for medical negligence against the defendants, and that she was out of time. She had known of her condition, but said she had no sufficient reason to see that . .
Cited – Pierce v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council QBD 13-Dec-2007
The claimant sought damages, saying that the local authority had failed to protect him when he was a child against abuse by his parents.
Held: The claimant had been known to the authority since he was a young child, and they owed him a duty of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Negligence

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.81173

First National Comercial Bank plc v Humberts: CA 27 Jan 1995

The plaintiff loaned money on the basis of a negligent survey by the defendant. The borrower subsequently defaulted, and the lender issued a writ. The defendant said that the claim was time barred.
Held: The court allowed the plaintiff’s appeal. A cause of action against surveyor arose only when the loss was sustained and crystalised, and it was not sustained on the survey.
Saville LJ said: ‘To my mind it would be wrong simply to take the debit side of the deal and to describe it as loss or damage flowing from the breach of duty without taking into account the credit side of the deal. The reason for this is that the inquiry is as to what loss or damage (if any) has been sustained through making the deal and when such loss or damage has been incurred. On this basis, on the evidence, I am quite unpersuaded that in July 1983 the plaintiffs were, to put it colloquially, out of pocket in respect of these expenses as a result of making the deal. They had no doubt incurred some expenditure but they had also received some benefit and there is nothing to show that the former exceeded the latter.’ and
‘At the hearing and in the judgment much reliance was placed on the cases where the claimant entered into a transaction which through a breach of duty owed to the claimant provided the claimant with less rights than should have been secured, or imposed liabilities or obligations on the claimant which should not have been imposed. Examples of these cases are: Forster v Outred and Co [1982] 1 WLR 86, Iron Trade Mutual Insurance Co Ltd v J K Buckenham Ltd [1990] 1 All ER 808, and Bell v Peter Browne and Co. [1990] 2 QB 495. In all those cases, however, the court was able to conclude that the transaction then and there caused the claimant loss, on the basis that if the injured party had been put in the position he would have occupied but for the breach of duty, the transaction in question would have provided greater rights, or imposed lesser liabilities or obligations than was the case; and that the difference between these two states of affairs could be quantified in money terms at the date of the transaction.’
‘At the hearing and in the judgment much reliance was placed on the cases where the claimant entered into a transaction which through a breach of duty owed to the claimant provided the claimant with less rights than should have been secured, or imposed liabilities or obligations on the claimant which should not have been imposed. Examples of these cases are: Forster v Outred and Co (a firm) [1982] 1 WLR 86, Iron Trade Mutual Insurance Co Ltd v J K Buckenham Ltd [1990] 1 All ER 808 and Bell v Peter Browne and Co (a firm) [1990] 2 QB 495. In all those cases, however, the court was able to conclude that the transaction then and there caused the claimant loss, on the basis that if the injured party had been put in the position he would have occupied but for the breach of duty, the transaction in question would have provided greater rights, or imposed lesser liabilities or obligations than was the case; and that the difference between these two states of affairs could be quantified in money terms at the date of the transaction. By contrast, in the present case, as in UBAF Ltd v European American Banking Corp [1984] QB 713 (and indeed Wardley Australia Ltd v State of Western Australia (1992) 109 ALR 247) it seems to me that whichever of the legally recognised kinds of loss is examined, it is impossible on the material available to conclude that the plaintiffs suffered such loss at any time more than six years from the date of their writ. For the reasons given, it has not been shown that they lost the amount of their advances at that time, or incurred expenses in respect of which they were out of pocket at that time; or at that time lost other transactions or the opportunity to make other transactions of a value greater than the deal they made.’ and ‘It is the law that a cause of action for the tort of negligence only arises when there has been a breach of duty resulting in actual (as opposed to potential or prospective) loss or damage of a kind recognised by the law.’

Judges:

Saville LJ

Citations:

Times 27-Jan-1995, Independent 14-Feb-1995, [1995] 2 All ER 673

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Forster v Outred and Co CA 1981
A mother signed a mortgage deed charging her property to H as security for a loan to her son. She claimed the solicitor had been negligent in his advice. The solicitor replied that the claim was out of time. The loss accrued not when demand for . .
Cited – Iron Trade Mutual Insurance Co Ltd v J K Buckenham Ltd 1990
The negligence of the plaintiffs’ insurance brokers led to the insurance policies being voidable for non-disclosure.
Held: The plaintiffs suffered immediate damage on entering into the policies because they did not get the protection they . .
Cited – Bell v Peter Browne and Co CA 1990
Mr Bell asked his solicitors to transfer the matrimonial home into his wife’s sole name. He was to receive a one-sixth interest of the gross proceeds on a sale. His interests were to be protected by a trust deed or mortgage. The solicitor drafted . .

Cited by:

Helpful – Law Society v Sephton and Co (a Firm) and Others HL 10-May-2006
A firm of solicitors had a member involved in a substantial fraud. The defendant firm of accountants certified the firm’s accounts. There were later many calls upon the compensation fund operated by the claimants, who sought recovery in turn from . .
Cited – Pegasus Management Holdings Sca and Another v Ernst and Young (A Firm) and Another ChD 11-Nov-2008
The claimants alleged professional negligence in advice given by the defendant on a share purchase, saying that it should have been structured to reduce Capital Gains Tax. The defendants denied negligence and said the claim was statute barred.
Cited – Axa Insurance Ltd v Akther and Darby Solicitors and Others CA 12-Nov-2009
The court considered the application of the limitation period to answering when damage occurred when it arises under an unsecured contingent liability. The claimant insurance company had provided after the event litigation insurance policies to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Negligence

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.80562

Denty and Another v Hussein: ChD 26 May 1999

The parties owned adjoining premises. The plaintiffs sought relief, alledging that their rights of way had been infringed. The defendant had erected fences and gates across a service road.
Held: Where a party erected a fence obstructing a right of way, the court was able to differentiate between rights of way by foot and vehicular rights of way. The right of way by car had begun only within the prior 20 years. That particular right of way could be enforced by injunction, but not for the extent of use claimed.

Judges:

D L Mackie QC

Citations:

Gazette 16-Jun-1999, [1999] 96 (24) LSG 40

Statutes:

Prescription Act 1832

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Limitation

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.79903

Robinson v Adair: QBD 2 Mar 1995

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.

Judges:

Dyson J

Citations:

Times 02-Mar-1995, [1995] NPC 30

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 137, Road Traffic Act 1988 34(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hanning and Others v Top Deck Travel Group Ltd CA 9-Jun-1993
The owner of a common appealed a finding that the neighbouring land owner had acquired by prescription a right of way across the common to use a track for commercial vehicles (buses) to get to the property (the bus depot).
Held: An easement . .

Cited by:

Cited – Bakewell Management Limited v Brandwood and others HL 1-Apr-2004
Houses were built next to a common. Over many years the owners had driven over the common. The landowners appealed a decision that they could not acquire a right of way by prescription over the common because such use had been unlawful as a criminal . .
Cited – Hereford and Worcester County Council v Pick 1-Apr-1995
The issue was whether a presumed dedication of a road as a public highway could result from twenty years or more of uninterrupted public use in breach of section 34(1) of the 1988 Act. The court was considering whether a footpath, alleged to have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.88823

Sion v Hampstead Health Authority: CA 27 May 1994

An amendment to pleadings was allowed after the limitation period had expired in order to add a claim based on the same facts. The claim was brought by the father of a young man injured in a motor cycle accident. For fourteen days the father stayed at his son’s bedside, watching him deteriorate in health and fall into a coma and then die. The father now appealed against an order striking out his claim.
Held: Appeal dismissed, finding that there was no trace in the medical report of ‘shock’ no sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event. The report described a process continuing for some time, from first arrival at the hospital to the appreciation of medical negligence after the inquest. In particular the son’s death when it occurred was not surprising but expected. There was no reason in logic why a breach of duty causing an incident involving no violence or suddenness, such as where the wrong medicine is negligently given to a hospital patient, could not lead to a claim for damages for nervous shock, for example where the negligence has fatal results and a visiting close relative, wholly unprepared for what has occurred, finds the body and thereby sustains a sudden and unexpected shock to the nervous system.

Judges:

Peter Gibson LJ, Staughton LJ, Waite LJ

Citations:

Times 10-Jun-1994, [1994] 5 Med LR 170, [1994] EWCA Civ 26

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters CA 6-Dec-2002
A new mother woke in hospital to see her baby (E) fitting. E suffered a major epileptic seizure leading to coma and irreparable brain damage. E was transferred to a London hospital and the following day the claimant was told by a consultant that E’s . .
Cited – Taylor v A Novo (UK) Ltd CA 18-Mar-2013
The deceased had suffered a head injury at work from the defendant’s admitted negligence. She had been making a good recovery but then collapsed and died at home from pulmonary emboli, and thrombosis which were a consequence of the injury. The . .
Cited – Paul and Another v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust QBD 4-Jun-2020
Nervous shock – liability to third parties
The claimants witnessed the death of their father from a heart attack. They said that the defendant’s negligent treatment allowed the attack to take place. Difficult point of law about the circumstances in which a defendant who owes a duty of care . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Damages, Personal Injury, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.89280

Woodeson and Another v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd: CA 17 May 2018

Appeal from a decision to grant the defendant bank summary judgment in respect of certain of the claimants’ claims. The result of the judgment is that the claimants can pursue a claim in deceit and contend that such claim is neither time-barred nor precluded by anti-set off provisions in their contract with the bank. No other claim is permissible. That is because it is arguable that the time for a deceit claim (as opposed to claims for negligent advice or breach of statutory duty) is extended pursuant to section 32 of the 1980 Act and that the anti-set off provisions may be unreasonable clauses within the relevant statutory provisions, on which the bank may not rely.

Judges:

Longmore, Leggatt LJJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1103

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 32

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Boyse (International) Ltd v Natwest Markets Plc and Another ChD 27-May-2020
Claim alleging misselling of interest rate hedging products. The court considered the defendants strike out application, and applications for leave to amend pleadings.
Held: it will normally be appropriate for summary judgment to be pursued on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Banking, Limitation, Contract, Torts – Other

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.616341

O’Connor v Bar Standards Board: SC 6 Dec 2017

The claimant barrister complained of the manner of conduct of the disciplinary proceedings brought against her. She had been cleared of any breach of the Bar Code of Conduct, but her claim was then ruled out of time under section 7(5)(a), time having begun on the initial ruling against her.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The Appellant’s challenge was to the disciplinary proceedings against her, not to an alleged state of affairs in which BME lawyers were more likely to be the subject of such proceedings. Therefore, the bringing and pursuit of the disciplinary proceedings must be the focus of the investigation in terms of section 7(5)(a) of the 1998 Act. That section must not be read narrowly and must be allowed to provide an affective and workable remedy, particularly where what was complained of was a course of conduct. Here, there had been a single and continuing action. It had not been Parliament’s intention to have limitation calculated individually from each element of the process. The period ran from when the process ceased, not from when it began, and in this case it was from the time when the Visitors eventually allowed her appeal.

Judges:

Lady Hale, President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 78, [2018] 2 All ER 779, [2017] WLR(D) 813, [2017] 1 WLR 4833, [2018] HRLR 2, UKSC 2016/0174

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Videos Summary, SC 2017 Oct 04 am Video, SC 2017 Oct 04 pm Video

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At QBD – O’Connor v Bar Standards Board QBD 18-Dec-2014
Appeal against an order of Deputy Master Eyre by which he struck out the appellant’s statements of case and dismissed the action with judgment for the defendant with costs. The claimant said that the procedures adopted by the Board in disciplinary . .
Appeal from – O’Connor v Bar Standards Board CA 25-Jul-2016
The appellant said that the Board had infringed her human rights in its approach to disciplinary proceedings brought against her. She had been cleared and now sought a remedy. The Board successfully argued that her claims were out of time.
Cited – DH v Czech Republic ECHR 13-Nov-2007
(Grand Chamber) The applicants complained that their children had been moved to special schools which did not reflect their needs from ordinary schools without them being consulted.
Held: The Court noted that, at the relevant time, the . .
Cited – Rehman v The Bar Standards Board Admn 29-Jul-2016
The barrister appealed against two findingd of the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Council of the Inns of Court. . .
Cited – Lincoln v Daniels CA 1961
The defendant claimed absolute immunity in respect of communications sent by him to the Bar Council alleging professional misconduct by the plaintiff, a Queen’s Counsel.
Held: Initial communications sent to the secretary of the Bar Council . .
Cited – In re S (A Barrister) 1970
(Inns of Court) The regulation of barristers has been delegated by the judges to the Inns of Court. Five judges sitting as Visitors of the Inns of Court stated that ‘the judges as visitors have always had supervisory powers and their decision, upon . .
Cited – Delcourt v Belgium ECHR 17-Jan-1970
The applicant had failed in appeals against conviction and sentence for offences of fraud and forgery before the Belgian Cour de Cassation. He complained that he had not enjoyed the right to a fair trial recognised by Article 6(1) of the Convention . .
Cited – Sampanis and Others v Greece ECHR 8-Aug-2011
Resolution as to execution of judgment . .
Cited – Orsus And Others v Croatia ECHR 16-Mar-2010
(Grand Chamber) Fifteen Croatians of Roma origin complained that they were victims of racial discrimination in that they were segregated into Roma-only classes and consequently suffered educational, psychological and emotional damage.
Held: . .
Cited – Eckle v Germany ECHR 15-Jul-1982
Two fraud prosecutions against the claimants had lasted for 15 and 20 years respectively.
Held: Article 6.1 applies to all stages of criminal proceedings, including sentencing and any appeal. The ‘reasonable time’ in criminal matters, . .
Cited – Regina v Visitors to the Inns of Court ex parte Calder CA 1993
Two barristers had been struck off for disciplinary offences. Their appeals were heard by three High Court judges sitting as Visitors, who dismissed the appeals. The barristers now sought judicial review of that decision.
Held: Justices . .
Cited – Somerville v Scottish Ministers HL 24-Oct-2007
The claimants complained of their segregation while in prison. Several preliminary questions were to be decided: whether damages might be payable for breach of a Convention Right; wheher the act of a prison governor was the act of the executive; . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Human Rights, Discrimination, Limitation

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.599756

Gordon and Others (Trustees of The Inter Vivos Trust) v Campbell Riddell Breeze Paterson Llp: SC 15 Nov 2017

The claimants appealed from rejection of their claims for losses saying that such losses had been caused by their solicitors in failing properly to identify the tenant and the relevant lease when issuing notices to quit. The solicitors argued that the losses occurred when the defective notices were served, and by that date, the claims were debarred as out of time.
Held: The appeal failed. Section 11(3) does not postpone the start of the prescriptive period until a creditor of an obligation is aware actually or constructively that he or she has suffered a detriment in the sense that something has gone awry rendering the creditor poorer or otherwise at a disadvantage. The creditor does not have to know that he or she has a head of loss. It is sufficient that a creditor is aware that he or she has not obtained something which the creditor had sought or that he or she has incurred expenditure.
The Court accepted that the result may be harsh for some suffering loss, but also acknowledged that reform was being discussed.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 75, UKSC 2016/0142

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Videos Summary, SC 2017 Jul 19am Video

Statutes:

Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Appeal from – Gordon and Others v Campbell Riddell Breeze Paterson Llp SCS 8-Mar-2016
(Extra Division, Inner House) The claimant trustees appealed from rejection of their claims of professional negligence against the defendant solicitors as out of time. The parties disputed whether the limitation period ran from the service of . .
Cited – David T Morrison and Co Ltd (T/A Gael Home Interiors) v ICL Plastics Ltd and Others SC 30-Jul-2014
The claimant sought damages after an explosion at the defender’s nearby premises damaged its shop. The defender said that the claim was out of time, and now appealed against a decision that time had not begun to run under the 1973 Act.
Held: . .
At Outer House – The Inter-Vivos Trust of The Late William Strathdee Gordon v Campbell Riddle Breeze Paterson Llp SCS 25-Mar-2015
(Outer House) The trustees said they had suffered losses from the negligence of the defendant solicitors in serving incorrect notices to quit under leases. The solicitors said that the claim was time barred.
Held: After hearing evidence in a . .
Cited – Dunlop v McGowans HL 6-Mar-1980
The landlord of a block of flats needed vacant possession to pursue redevelopment. The respondent solicitors failed to give the necessary notice in good time, delaying the development by a year. The landlord appellant delayed five years before . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation, Professional Negligence

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.599381

Armstrong and others v British Coal Corporation: CA 28 Nov 1996

Liability for vibration white finger damage was foreseeable from 1973, but liability began in 1975 when precautions became available against the consequences and so the employer was able to protect his employees.

Citations:

Times 06-Dec-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 1049

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Limitation, Health and Safety

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.140916

Hamlin and Another v Edwin Evans (A Firm): CA 15 Jul 1996

The plaintiffs had discovered that the defendant surveyors had negligently failed to observe that there was dry rot but did not start proceedings until other negligence was discovered more than six years later.
Held: Although the negligent survey had led to two heads of loss there was only one cause of action. Since the plaintiffs had discovered the dry rot over six years previously, the action was statute barred. Only one cause of action arises from a negligent survey; and there is only one applicable limitation period.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Jul-1996, Times 15-Jul-1996, [1996] PNLR 398

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 14A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Watkins and Another v Jones Maidment Wilson (A Firm) CA 4-Mar-2008
The claimants alleged professional negligence by the defendant solicitors in advising them to agree to a postponment of a completion. The defendants raised as a preliminary issue the question of limitation. The claimant said that the limitation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Limitation

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.81199

Lowsley and Another v Forbes: CA 21 Mar 1996

The statutory time limit under the Limitation Act applied only to the right to take substantive proceedings and had nothing whatever to do with the procedural machinery for enforcing a judgment when one was obtained. The Act of 1875 brought about a fundamental change. The old absolute time bar on execution after 20 years, subsequently reduced to 12 years, was replaced by a discretionary bar after six years. On the making of a charging order, the amount to be secured by it was not limited to 6 years’ interest up to that date.
Garnishee proceedings to enforce a judgment were not subject to the limitation period in s.24(1); that section applied solely to an action to enforce the judgment and not to other procedural methods used to enforce a judgment. Evans LJ said: ‘The distinction between bringing an action to enforce a judgment, to which the Limitation Act applies, and bringing other forms of proceedings to enforce the original judgment, to which it does not, can perhaps be criticised as technical and indicating an out-dated preference for form over substance, but in my view the distinction can be justified. The policy reasons for barring the commencement of actions after a certain period has expired do not apply in the same way to the many different circumstances in which a successful plaintiff may seek to enforce a judgment which the defendant has ignored or failed to comply with for the same or a longer period after the judgment was given.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Evans, Lord Justice Saville and Lord Justice Morritt

Citations:

Times 05-Apr-1996, [1996] CLC 1370

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 24(1) 24(2), Supreme Court of Judicature (1873) Amendment Act 1875

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – National Westminster Bank v Powney CA 1990
The limitation period has nothing to do with the procedural machinery of enforcing a judgment when one was obtained. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Lowsley and Another v Forbes (Trading As I E Design Services) HL 29-Jul-1998
The plaintiffs, with the leave of the court, had obtained garnishee and charging orders nisi against the debtor 11 and a half years after they had obtained a consent judgment.
Held: An application by the judgment debtor to set aside the orders . .
Cited – National Ability Sa v Tinna Oils and Chemicals Ltd CA 11-Dec-2009
Implied promise to pay arbitral award
The parties disputed how limitation affects the enforcement of an arbitration award. More than six years had passed since the award had been made, and the defendant said it was out of time.
Held: A party can enforce an award either by ordinary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.83229

Customs and Excise Commissioners v Le Rififi Ltd: CA 14 Dec 1994

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.

Citations:

Times 14-Dec-1994, Gazette 15-Feb-1995

Statutes:

Finance Act 1985 22(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed from – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Le Rififi Ltd QBD 2-Aug-1993
One assessment covering numerous accounting periods constitutes a single global assessment. If any part of a global VAT assessment is time barred, then the whole assessment fails. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Limitation

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.79334

Sheldon and Others v R H Outhwaite (Underwriting Agencies) Ltd and Others: CA 1 Jul 1994

Concealment by Defendant after the event does not stop time running against Plaintiff.

Citations:

Times 01-Jul-1994, Independent 08-Jul-1994

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 32(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Sheldon and Others v R H M Outhwaite (Underwriting Agencies) Ltd QBD 8-Dec-1993
Deliberate concealment could prevent the limitation period from running. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Sheldon and Others v R H M Outhwaite (Underwriting Agencies) Ltd and Others HL 5-May-1995
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 . .
Appealed to – Sheldon and Others v R H M Outhwaite (Underwriting Agencies) Ltd QBD 8-Dec-1993
Deliberate concealment could prevent the limitation period from running. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.89210

Restick v Crickmore: CA 3 Dec 1993

The High Court can transfer proceedings wrongly started in High Court to the County Court as an alternative to its jurisdiction to strike out the claim. Stuart-Smith LJ said: ‘. . provided proceedings are started within the time permitted by the statute of limitations, are not frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the process of the court and disclose a cause of action, they will not as a rule be struck out because of some mistake in procedure on the part of the plaintiff or his advisers. Save where there has been a contumelious disobedience of the court’s order, the draconian sanction of striking out an otherwise properly constituted action, simply to punish the party who has failed to comply with the rules of court, is not part of the court’s function . .’

Judges:

Stuart-Smith LJ

Citations:

Times 03-Dec-1993, Ind Summary 20-Dec-1993, Gazette 26-Jan-1994, [1994] 1 WLR 420

Statutes:

Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Birmingham City Council v Abdulla and Others CA 29-Nov-2011
The Council appealed against an order dismissing its application for the claimants’ claims under equal pay legislation to be struck out for want of jurisdiction. The claims had been brought in the High Court rather than te hEmployment Tribunal, thus . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Limitation

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.88744

Hughes v Cook and Another: CA 14 Feb 1994

Adverse possession will accrue even if the claimant believed and acted on the mistaken belief that the land was already his. That belief was inconsistent with ownership by others. Beldam LJ said that counsel’s argument was fallacious: ‘. . in the failure to distinguish between an intention to possess, which is required, and an intention to dispossess, which is not.’
Saville LJ said: ‘The learned judge appears to have held that it is impossible for someone who believes himself to be the true owner to acquire title by adverse possession since such a person cannot, ex hypothesi, have an intention to exclude or oust the true owner. If this were the law then only those who knew they were trespassing, that is to say doing something illegal, could require such a title, whilst those who did not realise that they were doing anything wrong would acquire no right at all. I can see no reason why, as a matter of justice or common sense, the former but not the latter should be able to acquire title in this way. What the law requires is factual possession i.e. an exclusive dealing with the land as an occupying owner might be expected to deal with it, together with a manifested intention to treat the land as belonging to the possessor to the exclusion of everyone else. Obviously if the possessor knows or believes someone else has the paper title to the land he must intend to exclude that person along with everyone else. But in the absence of such knowledge or belief it is in my judgment sufficient for this part of the second requirement simply to establish a manifest intention to exclude everyone.’

Judges:

Beldam LJ, Saville LJ

Citations:

Ind Summary 21-Mar-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Roberts v Swangrove Estates Ltd and Another ChD 14-Mar-2007
The court heard preliminary applications in a case asserting acquisition of land by adverse possession, the land being parts of the foreshore of the Severn Estuary.
Held: A person may acquire title to part of the bed of a tidal river by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.81520

Dobbie v Medway Health Authority: CA 11 May 1994

The plaintiff had a lump on her breast. The surgeon, without first subjecting the lump to a microscopic examination in order to determine whether it was cancerous or benign, removed the breast. This was in 1973. The lump was subsequently found to be benign. The patient knew very soon after the operation that the lump was benign but did not know until 1988 that that meant her breast need not have been removed. She began proceedings for negligence in 1989.
Held: Time began to run from the date of knowledge of the cause of an injury, not the date when the claimant knew that the cause was tortious. Sir Thomas Bingham MR considered the test of knowledge: ‘This test is not in my judgment hard to apply. It involves ascertaining the personal injury on which the claim is founded and asking when the claimant knew of it. In the case of an insidious disease or a delayed result of a surgical mishap, this knowledge may come well after the suffering of the disease or the performance of the surgery. But more usually the claimant knows that he has suffered personal injury as soon or almost as soon as he does so’. ‘The word ‘attributable’ in section 14(1) (b) does not mean ’caused by’. It merely means ‘capable of being attributed”.
Sir Thomas Bingham MR said: ‘The personal injury on which the plaintiff seeks to found her claim is the removal of her breast and the psychological and physical harm which followed. She knew of this injury within hours, days or months of the operation and she at all times reasonably considered it to be significant. She knew from the beginning that this injury was capable of being attributed to, or more bluntly was the clear and direct result of, an act or omission of the health authority. What she did not appreciate until later was that the health authority’s act or omission was (arguably) negligent or blameworthy. But her want of that knowledge did not stop time beginning to run.’
As to the meaning of ‘significant injury’: ‘The requirement that the injury of which a plaintiff has knowledge should be ‘significant’ is in my view directed solely to the quantum of the injury and not to the plaintiff’s evaluation of its cause, nature or usualness. Time does not run against a plaintiff, even if he is aware of the injury, if he would reasonably have considered it insufficiently serious to justify proceedings against an acquiescent and credit-worthy defendant, if (in other words) he would reasonably have accepted it as a fact of life or not worth bothering about. It is otherwise if the injury is reasonably to be considered as sufficiently serious within the statutory definition: time then runs (subject to the requirement of attributability) even if the plaintiff believes the injury to be normal or properly caused.’

Judges:

Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Steyn LJ

Citations:

Ind Summary 06-Jun-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

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 11(4)(b) 14(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Halford v Brookes CA 1991
The plaintiff, the mother and administratrix of the estate of a 16 year old girl, alleged that her daughter had been murdered by one or both of the Defendants. The claim was for damages for battery. Rougier J at first instance had decided that: . .

Cited by:

Cited – Rowbottom v Royal Masonic Hospital CA 12-Feb-2002
The claimant sought damages for the negligent failure to administer antibiotics. Earlier proceedings had been discontinued, and the hospital resisted subsequent proceedings, claiming them to be time-barred. The claimant asserted that he knew of the . .
Cited – O’Driscoll v Dudley Health Authority CA 30-Apr-1998
The plaintiff sought damages for the negligence of the respondent in her care at birth. Years later the family concluded that her condition was a result of negligence. They waited until she was 21, when they mistakenly believed that she became an . .
Cited – Roberts vWinbow (3) CA 4-Dec-1998
The plaintiff was treated for depression by the defendant by prescription of drugs. She sufferred a reaction, but now claimed that the doctor’s slow reaction caused her to suffer lasting injury. The question on appeal was, if a plaintiff suffers . .
Cited – Haward and others v Fawcetts HL 1-Mar-2006
The claimant sought damages from his accountants, claiming negligence. The accountants pleaded limitation. They had advised him in connection with an investment in a company which investment went wrong.
Held: It was argued that the limitation . .
Cited – KR and others v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd and Another CA 10-Jun-2003
The court considered an extension of the time for claiming damages for personal injuries after the claimants said they had been sexually abused as children in the care of the defendants.
Held: The test to be applied under section 14(2) was . .
Cited – McCoubrey v Ministry of Defence CA 24-Jan-2007
The defendant appealed a decision allowing a claim to proceed more than ten years after it had been suffered. The claimant’s hearing had been damaged after an officer threw a thunderflash into his trench on an exercise.
Held: The defendant’s . .
Cited – Pierce v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council QBD 13-Dec-2007
The claimant sought damages, saying that the local authority had failed to protect him when he was a child against abuse by his parents.
Held: The claimant had been known to the authority since he was a young child, and they owed him a duty of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Negligence

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.80075

Broadley and Guy v Chapman and Co: CA 26 Jul 1993

The limitation period starts when the plaintiff realizes that her injury may have been caused by the failure of the medical practitioner. ‘Attributable to’ means ‘capable of being attributed to’ and not ’caused by’. ‘Act or omission’ does not equate with ‘negligence’, ‘actionable’ or ‘tortious’.

Citations:

Ind Summary 26-Jul-1993, Times 06-Jul-1993, [1993] 4 Med L R 328

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – O’Driscoll v Dudley Health Authority CA 30-Apr-1998
The plaintiff sought damages for the negligence of the respondent in her care at birth. Years later the family concluded that her condition was a result of negligence. They waited until she was 21, when they mistakenly believed that she became an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Professional Negligence

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.78661

First Subsea Ltd v Balltec Ltd and Others: CA 30 Mar 2017

The court considered the application of section 21 of the 1980 Act to a claim against a company director for breach of fiduciary duty.

Judges:

Patten, Kitchin, Briggs LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 186, [2017] WLR(D) 232, [2017] 3 WLR 896, [2018] Ch 25

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Company, Limitation

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.581338

In re Pantone 485 Ltd: ChD 29 Nov 2001

The respondent Bain was a director of a number of connected companies, including Smarturgent and Pantone, both of which he indirectly controlled. The liquidator of both companies brought proceedings against Bain on a number of claims for breach of duty as a director, including that he had caused Smarturgent to spend a total of over andpound;86,000 for the benefit of Pantone. It was argued on behalf of Bain that this claim was time-barred, but the liquidator relied on section 21(1)(b).
Held: Field QC responded to the submission saying: ‘The claim against Mr Bain is not that he transferred Smarturgent’s money to himself but that he caused the company’s money to be spent not for Smarturgent’s benefit but for Pantone’s. Mr Shaw submitted that the fact that the machine was acquired and the rentals paid for the benefit of Pantone, a company in which Mr Bain had an indirect controlling interest through his shareholding in AS2 meant that he was to be regarded as having received the trust property . . In my judgment, as a matter of basic principle where a fiduciary uses his beneficiary’s money to confer a benefit on a company he controls he is denying the beneficiary’s title to the money for his own purposes and this amounts to a conversion for his own use. The same is true where a fiduciary causes his beneficiary to incur a liability for the benefit of a company which the fiduciary controls. Since this is what the applicant is in substance alleging under the MOVP claim, I hold that this claim is within section 21(1)(b) of the Limitation Act and is therefore not statute barred.’

Judges:

Richard Field QC HHJ

Citations:

[2001] EWHC 705 (Ch), [2002] 1 BCLC 266, [2001] 2 EGLR 103

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 2(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Approved – Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd v Fielding and Another CA 17-Jun-2016
The company, now in liquidation sought to claim for the alledged misapplication by former directors of its funds in 2007. It now appealed against a summary rejection of its claim as time barred.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Section 21(1)(b) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Limitation

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.372690

Breda Fucine Meridionali v Commission: ECFI 15 Sep 1998

ECFI State aid – Article 93, paragraph 2 of the EC Treaty – Communication opening procedure – Aid not explicitly mentioned – Assistance to businesses located in disadvantaged areas – Restructuring – Recovery of aid – Limitation Period.

Citations:

T-127/96, [1998] EUECJ T-127/96

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Limitation

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433441

Eagle v Redlime Ltd: QBD 4 Apr 2011

The builder replied to a claim in negligence that it was out of time. They had built a concrete base for a kennels. The claimant said that they had not constructed proper foundations, and that he had come to know this only within the limitation period when it began to crack.

Judges:

Eder J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 838 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 14A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Limitation, Construction

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.431736

Global Financial Recoveries Ltd v Jones: ChD 13 Jan 2000

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.

Citations:

Gazette 13-Jan-2000, Times 23-Feb-2000, [2000] BPIR 1029

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – West Bromwich Building Society v Wilkinson HL 30-Jun-2005
The Society had taken possession of a property in 1989. It located the defendants many years later and sought payment of the excess after deduction of the proceeds of sale, and for interest. The borrowers claimed the debt was expired by limitation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Land, Banking, Limitation

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.80875

O’Donovan v Manchester (Ringway) Airport Plc: UTLC 26 Aug 2009

COMPENSATION – limitation – Land Compensation Act 1973 – whether proceedings brought when notice of reference sent to Tribunal – whether notice of reference a nullity if failing to identify all persons interested in the land – held claim not statute barred – 1973 Act s 16, Limitation Act 1980 s 9(1), Lands Tribunal Rules 1996 rr 10 and 11

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 164 (LC), [2009] RVR 358

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Limitation

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.415021

Ezekiel v Lehrer: ChD 21 Mar 2001

The claimant had given instructions to the defendant with regard to a charge. The defendant came to know that he had made an error, and when asked by the claimant, declined to answer, and referred the claimant to independent advice. The claimant now said that this amounted to a concealment of the truth such as to delay the onset of the limitation period.
Held: The circumstances could have been discovered by the claimant from correspondence sent to him by the defendant. The deemed misleading by the defendant did not therefore operate to suspend the running of the limitation period, and the claim was out of time.

Judges:

Evans-Lombe J

Citations:

Times 04-Apr-2001, Gazette 17-May-2001

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 32(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Markes v Coodes 1997
. .
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 . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Ezekiel v Lehrer CA 30-Jan-2002
The applicant claimed that his solicitor had been negligent with regard to the execution of a mortgage. The solicitor said his claim was time barred. The claimant said the solicitor had hidden the true situation from him, and the solicitor replied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.80430

Re a Debtor: ChD 1997

The creditor appealed the decision to set aside a statutory demand as statute barred.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Bankruptcy proceedings based on a statutory demand for moneys due under a previous default judgment constituted ‘an action upon a judgment’ within s24(1). Insolvency proceedings constituted a fresh action or proceeding newly brought, of the kind described in Lamb, rather than a proceeding under the judgment previously obtained. Bankruptcy proceedings were not, the judge held, a method of, nor were they akin to, enforcing or executing a judgment outside s24(1). As more than 6 years had elapsed since the default judgment became enforceable, bankruptcy proceedings based on it in the statutory demand would be statute barred by s24(1). It was held that the statutory demand had been rightly set aside by the district judge.

Judges:

Baker J

Citations:

[1997] Ch 310

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 24(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ridgeway Motors (Isleworth) Ltd v Alts Ltd CA 10-Feb-2005
The company appelaed a refusal of the judge to strike out a winding up petition. They said the petition was based upon a judgment which was now time barred. The petitioner replied that such a petition was not an action under the section.
Held: . .
Disapproved – Ridgeway Motors (Isleworth) Ltd v Altis ChD 21-May-2004
The company sought to strike out a winding up petition presented by the respondents, saying a winding up petition was by way of an action, and was barred by statute after six years.
Held: A winding up petition was not an action within the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Limitation

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.223039

Uniplex (UK) Limited v Uniplex (Law Relating To Undertakings): ECJ 29 Oct 2009

ECJ Public procurement Directive 89/665/EEC – Review procedure under national law – Effective legal protection -Limitation periods – Point at which time starts running – Whether the applicant knew or ‘ought to have’ known of the breach of procurement law Requirement that proceedings be brought ‘promptly’.

Citations:

C-406/08, [2009] EUECJ C-406/08 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

See Also – Uniplex (UK) Limited v Uniplex ECJ 28-Jan-2010
ECJ Directive 89/665/EEC – Procedures for review of the award of public contracts – Period within which proceedings must be brought – Date from which the period for bringing proceedings starts to run. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Limitation, Judicial Review

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.380310

Hampton v Minns: ChD 17 May 2001

The parties were each sureties for a debt to their bank from their company. The bank recovered the company’s debt from one surety, who in turn sought a contribution of half from the other. The respondent asserted that the claim was statute barred, because in this case it was a claim under a guarantee for which the limitation period was two years. The claimant succeeded, on the basis that the claim was in debt, because of the particular agreement. On its true construction the agreement between the parties created a debt, and the right to a contribution did not arise under the 1978 Act.

Citations:

Gazette 17-May-2001

Statutes:

Civil Liability (Contributions) Act 1978 1, Limitation Act 1980 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Limitation, Banking

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.81213

Nolan v Wright: CA 15 Oct 2009

Action for the recovery of a very large sum of money from the defendant borrower pursuant to an unregulated credit agreement and a legal charge. The defendant seeks to set aside the loan documentation as a sham or procured by undue influence or misrepresentation.

Judges:

Lloyd LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1131

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Costs, Limitation

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.377533

Wilkinson v Ancliff (BLT) Ltd: CA 1986

In order to be fixed with sufficient knowledge to start the limitation period running, it was not necessary for the plaintiff to have knowledge sufficient to enable his legal advisers to draft a fully and comprehensively particularised statement of claim.

Judges:

Slade LJ

Citations:

[1986] 1 WLR 1352

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Haward and others v Fawcetts HL 1-Mar-2006
The claimant sought damages from his accountants, claiming negligence. The accountants pleaded limitation. They had advised him in connection with an investment in a company which investment went wrong.
Held: It was argued that the limitation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.238774

Westminster City Council v Clifford Culpin and partners: CA 18 Jun 1987

It was questionable whether plaintiffs should be allowed the benefit of the full limitation period with virtual impunity where the facts are known and there is no obstacle to the speedy institution and prosecution of claims.

Judges:

Kerr LJ

Citations:

Unreported, 18 June 1987, Transcript No 592 of 1987

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Doubted – Department of Transport v Chris Smaller (Transport) Ltd HL 1989
An application had been made to strike out a claim for want of prosecution. The writ was not issued until the end of the relevant six year limitation period and then not served for a further nine months. The period of inexcusable delay after action . .
Cited – Grovit and others v Doctor and others HL 24-Apr-1997
The plaintiff began a defamation action against seven defendants. Each had admitted publication but pleaded justification. The claims against the fourth to seventh defendants were dismissed by consent, and the third had gone into liquidation. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.214298

Jim Ennis Construction Ltd v Premier Asphalt Ltd: TCC 24 Jul 2009

The court was asked as to the date of accrual of the cause of action where a losing party to an adjudication brought under Part II of the 1996 Act later begins proceedings to seek a final determination of the matters decided by the adjudicator with a view to recovering monies paid to the winning party in compliance with the adjudicator’s decision. ‘The Claimant contends that the cause of action is separate and distinct from the cause of action in respect of the dispute referred to adjudication, and does not arise until the date of payment in compliance with the decision, whereas the Defendant contends that the cause of action is no different from the dispute referred to adjudication and thus arises at the same time as that underlying cause of action.’
Held: There was an implied term of the construction contract that an unsuccessful party to an adjudication was entitled to be repaid all sums paid by it in compliance with an adjudication if they were subsequently decided or agreed not to be due and that the cause of action for such sums accrued at the date of the original payment.

Judges:

HHJ Stephen Davies

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1906 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, Limitation Act 1980

Cited by:

Cited – Aspect Contracts (Asbetos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc SC 17-Jun-2015
Aspect had claimed the return of funds paid by it to the appellant Higgins under an adjudication award in a construction contract disute. The claimant had been asked to prpare asbestos surveys and reports on maisonettes which Higgins was to acquire . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Limitation

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.361479

Gold v Mincoff Science and Gold: ChD 18 Jan 2001

A sleeping partner in a business executed several charges over partnership property, unaware that the funds raised were being used for purposes other than the partnership business. Their solicitors admitted negligence in not advising them sufficiently closely as to the effect of the all monies nature of the charges. A claim was brought to recover money, but then enlarged when the creditor appreciated the extent of the all monies charge. The claimant sought damages for negligence from the solicitor.
Held: The limitation defence succeeded only in part. Where the solicitor had chosen to hide the effect of the clause from his client on signing later charges, liability arising under earlier charges continued.

Judges:

Neuberger J

Citations:

Gazette 18-Jan-2001

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal From – Gold v Mincoff Science and Gold (A Firm) CA 19-Jul-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Land, Limitation

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.80896

Harris v Bolt Burdon (A Firm): CA 2 Feb 2000

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.

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 3037, [2000] CP Rep 70, [2000] CPLR 9

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Dowson and Others v Northumbria Police QBD 30-Apr-2009
Nine police officers claimed damages for alleged harassment under the 1997 Act by a senior officer in having bullied them and ordered them to carry out unlawful procedures. Amendments were sought which were alleged to be out of time and to have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Professional Negligence, Litigation Practice

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.342142

In Re A Debtor (2672 of 2000): ChD 2 Nov 2000

More than six years after a costs order, the creditor began bankruptcy proceedings for unpaid costs. The debtor claimed the debt was time barred. The court found that the time started when the judgment became enforceable. As regards an order for costs, that happened only when the amount was fixed by taxation. The six year period had not expired with respect to that date.

Citations:

Gazette 02-Nov-2000, Times 05-Dec-2000

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insolvency, Costs, Limitation

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.81648

Aylott v West Ham Corporation: CA 1927

The plaintiff sought to recover a sum of money under a statute.

Judges:

Lord Hanworth MR

Citations:

[1927] 1 Ch 30

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Hill (As Trustee In Bankruptcy of Nurkowski) v Spread Trustee Company Ltd and Another CA 12-May-2006
The defendants sought relief for transactions entered into at an undervalue. The bankrupt had entered into charges and an assignment of a loan account in their favour before his bankruptcy, and the trustee had obtained an order for them to be set . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.244179

Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd v Fielding and Another: ChD 5 Sep 2014

The company sought to recover from the defendants, two former directors.
Held: The claim was statute barred.
Hodge QC dealt with the claimant’s reliance on section 32: ‘That leaves the claimant’s reliance upon section 32. There the difficulties that the claimant faces are that there are no facts sufficiently asserted to give rise, in my judgment, to any realistic prospect of relying upon either limb of section 32 of the 1980 Act. Given the knowledge and involvement on the part, in particular of the company’s auditors, I fail to see how it can be asserted either (1) that there was any deliberate commission of a breach of duty on the part of the defendants; or (2) that there had been any deliberate concealment from the claimant company of facts relevant to the claimant’s alleged right of action. I am afraid, from Mr Latimer’s point of view, that I just do not see how the claimant company can begin to get home in relation to either of those matters. In view of the involvement of the accountants and solicitors, there is no realistic prospect of establishing either the deliberate commission of a breach of duty or the deliberate concealment of any fact relevant to the claimant’s right of action.’

Judges:

Hodge QC HHJ

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 3356 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Companies Act 2006, Limitation Act 1980 2(1)(b) 32

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd v Fielding and Another CA 17-Jun-2016
The company, now in liquidation sought to claim for the alledged misapplication by former directors of its funds in 2007. It now appealed against a summary rejection of its claim as time barred.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Section 21(1)(b) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Trusts, Limitation

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.538050

A (Historic Child Abuse) v Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 4 Jul 2008

The authority appealed an order that the claimants could proceed with claims for damages for child abuse said to have been suffered in care in 1970.

Judges:

May LJ, Keene LJ, Smith LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 783

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 11 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Limitation, Torts – Other

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270575

Berezovsky v Abramovich: ComC 22 May 2008

Applications were made to amend pleadings and for consequential orders. The claimant sought damages of $4.3 billion alleging breach of trust. The claimant sought to add claims which the defendant said were out of time.
Held: The proposed amendment was refused. ‘It is open to the Claimant to bring claims for breach of trust or of fiduciary duty more than six years after the causes of action arose but only for those explicitly based on and limited to fraud. The current proposed amendment is not explicit about fraud.’

Judges:

Mackie J QC

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1138 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 21(1)(a)

Citing:

Cited – Cobbold v London Borough of Greenwich CA 9-Aug-1999
The tenant had sought an order against the council landlord for failure to repair her dwelling. The defendant appealed refusal of leave to amend the pleadings in anticipation of the trial, now due to start on the following day.
Held: Leave was . .
Cited – Armitage v Nurse; etc CA 19-Mar-1997
A clause in a trust deed may validly excuse trustees from personal liability for even gross negligence. The trustee was exempted from liability for loss or damage ‘unless such loss or damage shall be caused by his own actual fraud’.
Held: The . .
Cited – Paragon v Thakerer 1993
A claim for fraudulent or intentional breach of trust/fiduciary duty is a different cause of action from a claim for breach of trust/fiduciary duty generally and must be separately and distinctly pleaded. . .
Cited – Giles v Rhind CA 28-Feb-2008
. .
Cited – DEG-Deutsche Investitions und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH v Koshy and Other (No 3); Gwembe Valley Development Co Ltd (in receivership) v Same (No 3) CA 28-Jul-2003
The company sought to recover damages from a director who had acted dishonestly, by concealing a financial interest in a different company which had made loans to the claimant company. He replied that the claim was out of time. At first instance the . .
Cited – Goode v Martin CA 13-Dec-2001
The claimant had sought to amend her claim for damages for personal injuries. The application had been rejected as introducing a claim not based on the same facts. She had suffered severe head injuries, and had no memory of the accident. She served . .
Cited – Welsh Development Agency v Redpath Dorman Long Ltd CA 4-Apr-1994
A new claim was not deemed to have been made until the pleading was actually amended for limitation purposes, and should not be allowed after the limitation period had expired. The date of the application for leave to amend was not at issue. The . .
Cited – The Convergence Group Plc and Another v Chantrey Vellacott (a Firm) CA 16-Mar-2005
An accountant sought payment of his professional fees. The defendants had sought to re-amend their defence and counterclaim. Appeals had variously been allowed to go ahead or denied after the master had not been able to deal with all of them for . .
Cited – Nomura International Plc v Granada Group Ltd and others ComC 23-Mar-2007
To fulfil the requirement in CPR Part 16.2.1(a) ‘it is necessary at least to give some idea or indication of the duty which it is alleged the defendant has failed to perform.’ . .
Cited – P and O Nedloyd BV v Arab Metals Co and Others (‘The UB Tiger’) QBD 22-Jun-2005
The claimants sought to amend their particulars of claim to add a request for declarations with regard to a bill of lading and contract for carriage.
Held: The application to amend was made more than six years after the cause of action . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Trusts, Limitation

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268005

Bradford and Bingley Plc v Cutler: CA 18 Jan 2008

The borrower fell into arrears when he lost his job. Benefits payments were made toward the debt under the 1992 Act. Those stopped, and the house was repossessed. The property was sold, and the claimant eventually sought to recover the shortfall. They relied on the last benefits payment as acknowledgement of the debt, saying it was paid as agent for the borrower. The borrower said that their was no relationship of agency.
Held: The Benefits Agency payments went to reduce the borrower’s liability and were for his benefit. They were made as his agent and constituted an acknowledgment of the debt.

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 74

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Act 1992, Limitation Act 1980 29(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Limitation

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264658

Ofulue and Another v Bossert: CA 29 Jan 2008

The claimants appealed an order finding that the defendant had acquired their land by adverse possession. They said that the defendant had asserted in defence to possession proceedings that they were tenants, and that this contradicted an intent to deny the claimants’ title.
Held: The appeal failed. A finding by the ECHR that a particular area falls within the contracting states’ margin of appreciation is therefore a signal to the national judge that the decision of the national authorities as to the content of rights within that area should receive appropriate respect. The court was to apply Pye -v- United Kingdom. The margin of appreciation given to a national court was not something to be retested on each adverse possession case. A person believing himself to be a tenant may still be in adverse possession, even if his belief that he is a tenant is incorrect. The statement in the pleadings did not amount to an acknowledgement.

Judges:

Arden LJ, May LJ, Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 7, [2008] HRLR 20, [2008] 3 WLR 1253, [2008] UKHRR 447, [2009] Ch 1, [2008] NPC 8

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 29, Land Registration Act 1925 75(1), Human Rights Act 1998 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others v Graham and Another HL 4-Jul-2002
The claimants sought ownership by adverse possession of land. Once the paper owner had been found, they indicated a readiness to purchase their interest. The court had found that this letter contradicted an animus possidendi. The claimant had . .
Applied – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 30-Aug-2007
UK Advers Possession Law – Not Compliant
The claimant had said that the UK law which allowed it to lose land by virtue of twelve year’s occupation by a squatter, interfered with its right to ownership of property.
Held: The UK law on adverse possession did comply with the Convention. . .
Cited – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-2005
The claimants had been the registered proprietors of land, they lost it through the adverse possession of former tenants holding over. They claimed that the law had dispossessed them of their lawful rights.
Held: The cumulative effect of the . .
Cited – Belfast City Council v Miss Behavin’ Ltd HL 25-Apr-2007
Belfast had failed to license sex shops. The company sought review of the decision not to grant a licence.
Held: The council’s appeal succeeded. The refusal was not a denial of the company’s human rights: ‘If article 10 and article 1 of . .
Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
Cited – Miailhe v France (No 2) ECHR 26-Sep-1996
Hudoc Preliminary objection joined to merits (victim); Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Preliminary objection rejected (ratione materiae); No violation of . .
No longer correct – Beaulane Properties Ltd v Palmer ChD 23-Mar-2005
The paper owner sought possession of land. The defendant said he had acquired a possessory title. The land was registered.
Held: The claimant’s human rights under article 1 were engaged. To be justifiable, the interference in that right had to . .
Cited – Powell v McFarlane ChD 1977
Intention to Establish Adverse Possession of Land
A squatter had occupied the land and defended a claim for possession. The court discussed the conditions necessary to establish an intention to possess land adversely to the paper owner.
Held: Slade J said: ‘It will be convenient to begin by . .
Cited – Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran CA 13-Feb-1989
The parties’ respective properties were separated by a fence or hedge and the true owner had no access to the disputed land. In 1967 the Defendants’ predecessors in title began to maintain the land by mowing the grass and trimming the hedges and . .
Cited – Lodge (T/A JD Lodge) v Wakefield Metropolitan Council CA 21-Mar-1995
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 . .
Cited – Re Flynn (no 2) 1969
An acknowledgement of title to restart a limitation period must be precisely focused on a disputed right. . .
Cited – Surrendra Overseas Ltd v Government of Sri Lanka 1977
A debtor can only be held to have acknowledged the claim if he has in effect admitted his legal liability to pay that which the plaintiff seeks to recover. An acknowledgement of part only of a debt cannot operate to acknowledge more.
Kerr J . .
Cited – Markfield Investments Ltd v Evans CA 9-Nov-2000
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 . .
Cited – BP Properties Ltd v Buckler CA 31-Jul-1987
The putative owner of the paper title wrote to the defendant who occupied the relevant property in October 1974 as follows: ‘Since we wish to help you as much as possible we are prepared to allow you to remain in occupation of the house and garden . .
Cited – Horner v Cartwright CA 11-Jul-1989
Stuart Smith LJ discussed the status of pleadings in a limitation as an acknowledgement: ‘It is unnecessary for the purpose of this judgment to deal with Mr. Horner’s submission that a statement in an action once it is contained in a pleading enures . .
Cited – Rush and Tomkins Ltd v Greater London Council HL 3-Nov-1988
The parties had entered into contracts for the construction of dwellings. The contractors sought payment. The council alleged shortcomings in the works. The principal parties had settled the dispute, but a sub-contractor now sought disclosure of the . .
Cited – Re Gee and Co (Woolwich) Ltd 1975
Company accounts can acknowledge the company’s liability for debts as at the date at which the accounts are drawn up even if they are not finalised and signed until after that date. . .
Cited – Handyside v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Dec-1976
Freedom of Expression is Fundamental to Society
The appellant had published a ‘Little Red Schoolbook’. He was convicted under the 1959 and 1964 Acts on the basis that the book was obscene, it tending to deprave and corrupt its target audience, children. The book claimed that it was intended to . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Ofulue and Another v Bossert HL 11-Mar-2009
The parties disputed ownership of land, one claiming adverse possession. In the course of negotations, the possessor made a without prejudice offer to purchase the paper owner’s title. The paper owner claimed that this was an acknowledgement under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation, Human Rights

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264011

Allen v Matthews: CA 13 Mar 2007

The defendants appealed an order refusing title by adverse possession to registered land. They denied that the limitation period had been restarted by their solicitor’s letter acknowledging the title.
Held: The letter must be read as a whole. As such it was an admission of title. The requirement that the possession be adverse requires only that the possession was not pursuant to a licence, whether express or implied, from the owner. This is because possession is not adverse if it is enjoyed under a legal title. Whether a person with limited permission to use or occupy land might rely on more extensive activity to claim adverse possession is a question of fact turning on the circumstances of the case.

Judges:

Ward LJ, Moore-Bick LJ, Lawrence Collins LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 216

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 15

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Lambeth v George Bigden and Others CA 1-Dec-2000
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. . .
Cited – Richardson v Younger 1871
When there are two joint claimants to possessory title, and it is said that they had acknowledged the paper owner’s title, the acknowledgment must be given by or on behalf of both of them. . .
Cited – Edginton v Clark CA 1964
An offer to purchase the paper owner’s interest, even if made ‘subject to contract’, can be a sufficient acknowledgement of his title to defeat a claim for adverse possession. Upjohn LJ said: ‘If a man makes an offer to purchase freehold property, . .
Cited – Asbury v Asbury 1898
A defendant to a claim for adverse possession made by two joint claimants, and who asserts an acknowledgement of his title must show that the acknowledgement was by both claimants. . .
Cited – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others v Graham and Another HL 4-Jul-2002
The claimants sought ownership by adverse possession of land. Once the paper owner had been found, they indicated a readiness to purchase their interest. The court had found that this letter contradicted an animus possidendi. The claimant had . .
Cited – Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran CA 13-Feb-1989
The parties’ respective properties were separated by a fence or hedge and the true owner had no access to the disputed land. In 1967 the Defendants’ predecessors in title began to maintain the land by mowing the grass and trimming the hedges and . .
Cited – Powell v McFarlane ChD 1977
Intention to Establish Adverse Possession of Land
A squatter had occupied the land and defended a claim for possession. The court discussed the conditions necessary to establish an intention to possess land adversely to the paper owner.
Held: Slade J said: ‘It will be convenient to begin by . .
Cited – Riyad Bank and others v Ahli United Bank (Uk) Plc CA 23-Nov-2005
A renewed application for leave to appeal was made as regards a valuation element of the judgment. New expert evidence was sought to be admitted.
Held: Leave was refused: ‘the Court of Appeal should be particularly cautious where what is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Limitation

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249954

Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and Another v Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd: ChD 16 Feb 2006

The patent application had been presented to the European Patent Office and granted only after 13 years. The claimant now appealed refusal to allow amendment of its claim to allow a claim in its sole name. The defendant argued that it was out of time.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘ the long-standing rule of practice is that the new claim should be advanced in a new action, where the defence can be tested. If (as the Hearing Officer rightly concluded) CPR 17.4 did not apply, then the long standing rule of practice was the relevant default rule. ‘ ‘Section 72 (2) bars the making of an application outside the two year limit, not merely the making of an order. In addition, section 74 (4) precludes the raising (outside the two year time limit) of invalidity on the ground that the patent was granted to a person not entitled to it in infringement proceedings (among others). ‘ and ‘section 37 (5) bars the making of a claim outside the two year time limit; not merely the grant of a particular remedy. ‘ The tribunal had its own inherent power to manage its afairs, but the rules gave the Comptroller his own discretion and limited its use. In that circumstance, the inherent power was not to be relied upon to restore a discretion withheld by parliament. There was a fundamental difference between carrying on existing proceedings as a result of a devolution of title once the proceedings have started and an enlargement of the scope of a dispute as a result of an amendment. If an amendment adding a new party or a new cause of action is made to a rule 54 statement, the amendment will not relate back to the date of the original reference, but (where the amendment is made in order to raise a claim of the kind contemplated by Article 23 of the CPC) will take effect from the time it was made. The underlying principles are: i) That permission to amend to introduce new parties or a new claim should not be granted where there is a clear limitation defence; and ii) Where the limitation defence is arguable, it should be tested in fresh proceedings.

Judges:

Lewison J

Citations:

[2006] RPC 24, [2006] EWHC 160 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 37(5), Patents Rules 1995, Civil Procedure Rules 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ocean Estates Ltd v Pinder HL 1969
The court asked whether the sufficiency of adverse possession might be qualified either by the intentions of the paper owner or the squatter’s willingness to pay for their occupation if asked. Lord Diplock: ‘Where questions of title to land arise in . .
Cited – Boake Allen Ltd and others v HM Revenue and Customs CA 31-Jan-2006
The claimant companies had paid corporation tax under rules which had later been found to be discriminatory. They now sought repayment by virtue of double taxation agreements with the countries in which the parent companies were based.
Held: . .
Cited – Langley v North West Water Authority 1991
A tribunal has an inherent power (subject to constraints) to regulate the procedure to be followed before it. . .
Cited – Pharmedica GMBH’s Trade Mark Application ChD 2000
The tribunal was asked whether an assignee of a trademark should be substituted in existing opposition proceedings for the assignor. The assignment had taken place after the proceedings had begun.
Held: A tribunal has an inherent power to . .
Cited – Markem Corporation and Another v Zipher Ltd CA 22-Mar-2005
A patent which was applied for as a result of a breach of confidence may be capable of giving the victim of the breach the benefit of an interest in the patent. In the UK at least the basis of an entitlement claim must be a breach of the claimant’s . .
Cited – Regina v Comptroller-General of Patents Designs and Trademarks ex parte Ash and Lacey Building Products Ltd 2002
Revocation was sought on the ground that the patent was invalid because of anticipation by prior publication. The court considered its powers under section 77 in the context of such a revocation application: ‘ . . the power to revoke arises in . .
Cited – Parsons and Another v George and Another CA 13-Jul-2004
The claimant sought to begin proceedings to renew his business tenancy, but the proceedings were issued in the wrong name. He sought to amend the proceedings to substitute the correct defendant, but that application was out of time.
Held: . .
Cited – Loveridge and Loveridge v Healey CA 20-Feb-2004
The landowner sought to recover possession of land occupied under an agreement by a mobile home owner.
Held: It was necessary for the land owner to show that he had complied with the requirements under the Act. It was insufficient for the . .
Cited – Goode v Martin CA 13-Dec-2001
The claimant had sought to amend her claim for damages for personal injuries. The application had been rejected as introducing a claim not based on the same facts. She had suffered severe head injuries, and had no memory of the accident. She served . .
Cited – Cobbold v London Borough of Greenwich CA 9-Aug-1999
The tenant had sought an order against the council landlord for failure to repair her dwelling. The defendant appealed refusal of leave to amend the pleadings in anticipation of the trial, now due to start on the following day.
Held: Leave was . .
Cited – Welsh Development Agency v Redpath Dorman Long Ltd CA 4-Apr-1994
A new claim was not deemed to have been made until the pleading was actually amended for limitation purposes, and should not be allowed after the limitation period had expired. The date of the application for leave to amend was not at issue. The . .
Cited – Aldi Stores Ltd v Holmes Buildings Plc CA 1-Dec-2003
What makes a claim a ‘new claim’ as defined in section 35(2) of the Limitation Act 1980 is not the newness of the case according to the type or quantum of the remedy claimed, but the newness of the cause of action that it involves. A cause of action . .
Cited – Lloyds Bank Plc v Rogers CA 16-Jul-1999
Where a claim had been made for possession of property under a legal charge, but no claim had been made for financial relief, and a later claim for such relief was made through an amended claim, the loss of the possible defence of limitation was a . .

Cited by:

Cited – Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd v Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and others CA 31-Jul-2006
The claimants sought to amend their claim which had previously been on the basis of a joint ownership, to one of sole ownership.
Held: The application for the amendment being made more han two years after the grant, the amendment could not be . .
Appeal from – Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd v Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and others CA 31-Jul-2006
The claimants sought to amend their claim which had previously been on the basis of a joint ownership, to one of sole ownership.
Held: The application for the amendment being made more han two years after the grant, the amendment could not be . .
At First Instance – Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd v Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and others HL 24-Oct-2007
The claimants said that the defendant had misused confidential information sent to him to found an application for a patent, claiming wrongly to have been its inventor. The claimant appealed a refusal by the court to allow amendments to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice, Limitation

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238685

Jacqueline Adam v Rasal Ali: CA 21 Feb 2006

The defendant sought damages against the defendant for personal injury from his alleged negligence. Her action was struck out and she recommenced the action. The defendant pleaded that she was out of time. The claimant said that the first action having been struck out, the judge retained his discretion to disapply the limitation period, following Walkley.
Held: ‘I simply do not understand how it can be argued that because the first action brought out of time would not have been prejudiced by section 11 if the defendants did not or would not successfully have taken the limitation point, therefore the second action is not prejudiced by section 11. The second action is under direct threat of being defeated by a time-bar defence. ‘ Walkley was anomalous and should be confined to its facts. ‘Because the judge misdirected himself in material respects, we must exercise our own discretion. The question is whether it is equitable to allow the action to proceed. The answer is given by balancing the prejudice to the plaintiff against the prejudice to the defendant having regard to the specific factors and all the circumstances of the case. In summary this is a long delay, some of it unexplained. That delay is, however, mitigated by the fact that the defendant had very early notice of the claim, admitted liability and was well on the road to preparing to meet the damages claim when the guillotine fell. ‘

Judges:

Lady Justice Arden DBE Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Dyson

Citations:

[2006] 1 WLR 1330, [2006] EWCA Civ 91, Times 06-Mar-2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 11(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Confined to its facts – Walkley v Precision Forgings Ltd HL 1979
The plaintiff tried to bring a second action in respect of an industrial injury claim outside the limitation period so as to overcome the likelihood that his first action, although timeous, would be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Held: He . .
Cited – Chappell v Cooper CA 1980
The plaintiff’s writ had not been served within the required time, and it had become too late to extend its validity. The plaintiff isued a second writ. The defendant argued limitation. Counsel for the plaintiffs sought to distinguish Walkley on the . .
Cited – Thompson v Brown Construction (Ebbw Vale) Ltd HL 1981
The plaintiff’s solicitors, out of negligence, failed to issue a writ until one month after the limitation period had expired. The application to extend the period was rejected at first instance since he had an unanswerable claim against his . .
Cited – Re Workvale Ltd (In Liquidation) CA 8-Apr-1992
A limited company was correctly restored to the register from dissolution so that its insurers could face an arguable claim. Where a first writ issued within the primary limitation period was ineffective (although not a nullity) through having been . .
Cited – White v Glass CA 17-Feb-1989
The plaintiff had sued his club under its name, but it was an unincorporated association, and the action was stricken out as improperly constituted. The first writ issued within the primary limitation period but was ineffective. The defendant . .
Cited – Deerness v John R Keeble and Son (Brantham) Ltd HL 1983
The plaintiff suffered very serious injuries as a passenger in a car, and a writ was issued within the three-year period against the driver and the owner of the car whose insurers made a substantial interim payment. The writ was not served, nor . .
Cited – Shapland v Palmer CA 23-Mar-1999
The plaintiff’s car was struck by a company car driven by the defendant in the course of her employment and she sought damages. Her action, against the employer, was struck out as late under the 1980 Act. She then commenced an action against the . .
Cited – Barry Young (Deceased) v Western Power Distribution (South West) Plc CA 18-Jul-2003
The deceased had begun an action on becoming ill after exposure to asbestos by the defendant. He withdrew his action after receiving expert evidence that his illness was unrelated. A post-mortem examination showed this evidence to be mistaken. His . .
Cited – KR and others v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd and Another CA 12-Feb-2003
The respondent appealed decisions by the court to allow claims for personal injury out of time. The claims involved cases of sexual abuse inflicted by its employees going back over many years.
Held: The judge had misapplied the test laid down . .
Cited – Donovan v Gwentoys Ltd HL 1990
The plaintiff, then a 16 year old girl slipped and fell whilst employed at the defendant’s factory. The limitation period expired on her 21st birthday. She commenced proceedings five and a half months after that date. The judge extended time under . .

Cited by:

Cited – Horton v Sadler and Another HL 14-Jun-2006
The claimant had been injured in a road traffic accident for which the defendant was responsible in negligence. The defendant was not insured, and so a claim was to be made against the MIB. The plaintiff issued proceedings just before the expiry of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238659

Forsyth v A F Stoddard and Co Ltd: OHCS 1985

An action for damages by an employee against his employer was raised 48 days after the expiry of the triennium due to an oversight by an assistant with the pursuer’s solicitors. The sheriff refused to allow the action to be brought, the Sheriff Principal allowed it and on appeal the Second Division reversed the decision of the Sheriff Principal.
Held: A pursuer in such circumstances has to accept responsibility for the sins of omission or commission of his solicitor as ‘the correct exposition of the law’. since the pursuer was legally aided, the defenders would probably have to pay their own expenses, win or lose, whereas if the pursuer were refused the indulgence which he sought the defenders would not be placed in that position, was a relevant consideration: ‘In every case of this nature there is a common theme. If the pursuer is granted the court’s indulgence the defender loses a cast iron case, since but for that he would be legally free from the claim, and he is faced with the risk of losing the case with the consequential financial repercussions. That is a factor to be taken into account. He has no way out of that. On the other hand, if the pursuer is not granted the court’s indulgence his claim against the defender comes to an end, and the defender is freed and relieved of a claim which might have been a perfectly justifiable one. However, the pursuer might have, as here, an action against his solicitors for professional negligence which might or might not recoup him in whole or in part for the damages which he could no longer obtain from the defender. There are imponderables about such an alternative, and its outcome can vary from case to case. Neither of these contrasting considerations is in itself conclusive, and the weights to be applied to them respectively will again depend on the circumstances. In my opinion it is not illegitimate to have in consideration the strength of the case against the third party and the likelihood of a successful prosecution of such a case, but again that is just a factor. Another consideration (although the Sheriff Principal rejected it – wrongly in my view), even if it only carries a little weight, is the burden of the expenses the defenders have to bear even if they are successful, since the pursuer is a legally assisted person. This in a way is merely consequential on the major issue, but it is entitled to be taken into account for what it is worth.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Clerk Wheatley

Citations:

1985 SLT 51

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Approved – Donald v Rutherford IHCS 1984
A pedestrian was injured in a road traffic accident on 3 November 1975 but only raised an action on 13 February 1981. The failure to raise a timeous action was attributable to the fault of his former solicitors.
Held: He was allowed to proceed . .

Cited by:

Cited – David Lannigan v Glasgow City Council OHCS 12-Aug-2004
The pursuer said the teachers employed by the defendant had failed to identify that was dyslexic, leading him to suffer damage. The defenders said the claim was time barred, which the pursuer admitted, but then said that the claim ought to go ahead . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.200279

Kuenyehia and others v International Hospitals Group Ltd: CA 25 Jan 2006

Service of litigation documents by fax was not an acceptabe departure from the rules where the party being served had not beforehand given consent to service in this manner. The mere advertisement of a fax number did not amount to such consent. Such service could not be characterised as no more than a minor departure from the rules.
Neuberger LJ said: ‘we do not consider that the claimants can rely on the absence of prejudice to the defendant as a reason for letting the Judge’s decision to stand. In our view . . the time limits in the CPR, especially with regard to service of the claim form where the limitation period may have expired, are to be strictly observed, and extensions and other dispensations are to be sparingly accorded, especially when applied for after time has expired. While there may be exceptional cases, we consider that prejudice is only relevant in this sort of case to assist a defendant, where the court would otherwise think it right to dispense with service. In other words, prejudice to the defendant is a reason for not dispensing with service, but the absence of prejudice cannot usually, if ever, be a reason for dispensing with service’ and ‘Service on the defendant’s solicitors was ineffective under the CPR, and it cannot be said to have been a ‘minor departure’ from the permitted methods of service to serve on solicitors who had not been nominated by the defendant. In any event, for the reasons already given, this would not have been an exceptional case. Quite apart from any other point, it can fairly be said that it would have been only too easy for the claimants’ solicitors to ask the defendant, with whom they had been in fairly close contact, to nominate its solicitors’ address as its address for service in accordance with r.6.5(2), but they never did so.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Waller Lord Justice Dyson Lord Justice Neuberger

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 21, Times 17-Feb-2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Brown and Others v InnovatorOne Plc and Others ComC 19-Jun-2009
The claimants served proceedings by fax. The defendants denied that it was effective saying that they had not confirmed that they were instructed to accept service or that as required by the rules they had confirmed that they would accept service by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Limitation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.238134

P and O Nedloyd BV v Arab Metals Co and Others (‘The UB Tiger’): QBD 22 Jun 2005

The claimants sought to amend their particulars of claim to add a request for declarations with regard to a bill of lading and contract for carriage.
Held: The application to amend was made more than six years after the cause of action accrued. It was in its nature a new claim. The additional possibility that the new facts are substantially the same as those already relied on is limited to: ‘something going no further than minor differences likely to be the subject of enquiry but not involving any major investigation and/or differences merely collateral to the main substance of the new claim, proof of which would not necessarily be essential to its success.’ Though a declaration was discretionary claim, it was not an equitable one, and did not fall within section 36(1).

Judges:

Colman J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1276 (Comm), Times 03-Aug-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 3733

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 36(1), Civil Procedure Rules 17.4(2)

Cited by:

Appeal from – P and O Nedlloyd Bv v Arab Metals Co and others CA 28-Mar-2006
. .
Cited – Berezovsky v Abramovich ComC 22-May-2008
Applications were made to amend pleadings and for consequential orders. The claimant sought damages of $4.3 billion alleging breach of trust. The claimant sought to add claims which the defendant said were out of time.
Held: The proposed . .
Cited – Aspect Contracts (Asbetos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc SC 17-Jun-2015
Aspect had claimed the return of funds paid by it to the appellant Higgins under an adjudication award in a construction contract disute. The claimant had been asked to prpare asbestos surveys and reports on maisonettes which Higgins was to acquire . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Limitation

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231184

Generay Ltd v Containerised Storage Company Ltd: CA 23 Mar 2005

Judges:

Peter Gibson, Neuberger LJJ, Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 478

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Chambers v London Borough of Havering CA 20-Dec-2011
The defendant appealed against an order for him to surrender possession of land he had claimed by adverse possession. The Council was the registered proprietor. The defendant said he had used the land since 1981 for dumping of motor vehicle parts. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land, Limitation

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.224775

Green and others v Gaul and Another; In re Loftus deceased: ChD 18 Mar 2005

The claimants began an action in January 2003 to seek to set aside the appointment of an administrator from December 1991, and to have set aside transfers of property made within the estate.
Held: The limitation period against a personal representative began to run only after one year, the executor’s year, after the grant. No right of action arose until the executor became under a duty to distribute.
‘As regards the application for removal under Administration of Justice Act 1985, section 50, it is a matter for the discretion of the court, and that it is reasonable for the court to take a pragmatic approach, to consider the views of the beneficiaries and the interests of the estate as a whole.’
The family members disputed whether there had been a compromise of a dispute over the assets in their father’s estate.

Judges:

Lawrence Collins J

Citations:

[2005] 2 All ER 700, Times 28-Mar-2005, [2005] EWHC 406 (Ch), [2005] 1 WLR 1890

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Real Property Limitation Act 1860 13, Limitation Act 1980 21(3), Administration of Justice Act 1985 50

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In re Diplock’s estate CA 1948
After considering a situation in which trust money had been applied in making alterations to the property of an innocent third party but had not added to the value of the property,
Held: The origin of the equitable rules of tracing were . .
Cited – Sevcon Ltd v Lucas CAV Ltd HL 1986
A claim was brought for the infringement of a patent. It was brought after the specification had been published, but before the patent had been sealed.
Held: Time might run from a date before the plaintiff was entitled to sue. The cause of . .
Distingusihed – Hornsey Local Board v Monarch Investment Building Society CA 1889
The local authority had incurred expense in paving a street. They were entitled to apportion those expenses amongst the owners of the properties fronting onto that street and summarily to recover from the respective owners the amounts so . .
Applied – In Re Johnson, Sly v Blake 1855
The commencement of the limitation period against a beneficiary ran from the time when he acquired a present right to receive the inheritance. Time ran from the end of the executor’s year when the interest fell into possession.
Chitty J said: . .
Cited – Letterstedt v Broers PC 22-Mar-1884
(Supreme Court of the Cape of Good Hope) Lack of harmony may be of itself a good reason for a trustee to resign or be dismissed. Lord Blackburn approved a passage in Story’s Equity Jurisprudence, s 1289: ‘But in cases of positive misconduct, courts . .
Cited – Ministry of Health v Simpson; In re Diplock dec HL 1950
The will of Cable Diplock purported to make a gift to charity, and was distributed accordingly. The house however found the gift to be invalid.
Held: A personal remedy existed for the recovery of amounts wrongly paid in the distribution of an . .
Cited – Re Pauling’s Settlement Trusts (No.1) CA 29-May-1963
Property had been placed in trust for the daughter of the family, fearing that she might fritter it away. The trust was managed by the bank. The judge had found that, having misunderstood the powers of advancement given, the bank was liable to repay . .
Cited – Nelson v Rye and Another ChD 5-Dec-1995
The claimant, a solo musician appointed the defendant to be his manager collecting the fees and royalties due to him and paying his expenses. Rye was to account to him annually for his net income after deducting his own commission. When the . .
Cited – Evans v Westcombe; re Evans ChD 10-Mar-1999
Where available, missing beneficiary insurance was the preferred way of dealing with the problem, rather than applications to the court for Benjamin or other similar orders. Insurance should be cheaper and more certain for the personal . .
Cited – Earnshaw and Others v Hartley CA 31-Mar-1999
An administrator de son tort, who was also a beneficiary, held the estate property on trust, and so could not establish adverse possession against the estate during the period of trusteeship. He held a sufficient interest in the assets already. A . .
Cited – Gwembe Valley Development Co Ltd (In Receivership) v Koshy and Others ChD 8-Feb-2000
A company could give several people the power to appoint a receiver in respect of different elements of its assets. If this was done there was no fundamental reason why such appointments should not be put in effect. The appointment of one receiver . .
Cited – DEG-Deutsche Investitions und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH v Koshy and Other (No 3); Gwembe Valley Development Co Ltd (in receivership) v Same (No 3) CA 28-Jul-2003
The company sought to recover damages from a director who had acted dishonestly, by concealing a financial interest in a different company which had made loans to the claimant company. He replied that the claim was out of time. At first instance the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Doodes v Gotham, Perry ChD 17-Nov-2005
The trustee in bankruptcy had taken a charge on the property in 1992 to support the bankruptcy in 1988. He sought to enforce it in 2005. The chargor appealed an order which denied he was protected by limitation.
Held: The appeal succeeded. . .
Cited – Gotham v Doodes CA 25-Jul-2006
The former bankrupt resisted sale of his property by the trustee, saying that enforcement was barred by limitation. He and his wife bought the property in early 1988, and he was made bankrupt in October 1988. He was dischaged from bankruptcy in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Wills and Probate, Limitation

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223691

The Convergence Group Plc and Another v Chantrey Vellacott (a Firm): CA 16 Mar 2005

An accountant sought payment of his professional fees. The defendants had sought to re-amend their defence and counterclaim. Appeals had variously been allowed to go ahead or denied after the master had not been able to deal with all of them for lack of time.
Held: The several appeals raised common issues. Some were first appeals and some second. The applicable test for such appeals when heard together was that in CPR 52.3(6), treating them as first appeals. The new allegations arose out of the same or substantially the same facts as those already pleaded, so that permission to amend was granted.

Judges:

Clarke, Jonathan Parker LJJ

Citations:

Times 25-Apr-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 290

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 52.13(2) 52.3(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Uphill v BRB (Residuary) Ltd CA 3-Feb-2005
The court considered an application for leave for a second appeal.
Held: Pursuant to the Practice Direction, the court certified that though this was an application for leave, it could be cited: ‘the reference in CPR 52.13(2)(a) to ‘an . .

Cited by:

Cited – Berezovsky v Abramovich ComC 22-May-2008
Applications were made to amend pleadings and for consequential orders. The claimant sought damages of $4.3 billion alleging breach of trust. The claimant sought to add claims which the defendant said were out of time.
Held: The proposed . .
Cited – Dowson and Others v Northumbria Police QBD 30-Apr-2009
Nine police officers claimed damages for alleged harassment under the 1997 Act by a senior officer in having bullied them and ordered them to carry out unlawful procedures. Amendments were sought which were alleged to be out of time and to have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Civil Procedure Rules, Limitation

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223578

Morgan EST (Scotland) Ltd v Hanson Concrete Products Ltd: TCC 22 Jul 2004

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1778 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 35

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Morgan Est (Scotland) Ltd v Hanson Concrete Products Ltd CA 17-Feb-2005
The defendant appealed an order adding two new claimants.
Held: Cases decided under the old RSC were not apposite for matters covered by the new Civil Procedure Rules. The court was not bound by the Sardinia Sulcis rules: ‘The Sardinia Sulcis . .

Cited by:

On appeal from – Morgan Est (Scotland) Ltd v Hanson Concrete Products Ltd CA 17-Feb-2005
The defendant appealed an order adding two new claimants.
Held: Cases decided under the old RSC were not apposite for matters covered by the new Civil Procedure Rules. The court was not bound by the Sardinia Sulcis rules: ‘The Sardinia Sulcis . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Limitation

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218883

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Khan and Another: CA 16 Jan 2002

Judges:

Judge, Latham, Arden LJJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 279

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1957 9(1A)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Swansea City Council v Glass CA 1992
The defendant had failed himself to repair his property, and the Local Authority carried out the work itself under the 1957 Act. It sought to recover the associated costs from the defendant, but he said that their claim was time barred, being more . .
Appeal from – Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Khan and Wellcome Trust ChD 8-Jun-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Landlord and Tenant, Housing

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.216738

Agnew v Scott Lithgow J G Kincaid Ltd Kvaerner Govan Limited: SCS 1 Apr 2003

Common law claim against three of pursuer’s former employers for the loss, injury and damage said to have been suffered as a result of his working with vibrating tools in the course of his employment with them.

Judges:

Lord Abernethy and Lady Cosgrove and Lord Marnoch

Citations:

[2003] ScotCS 94, 2003 SCLR 426

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183971

Matadeen v Caribbean Insurance Co Ltd: PC 20 Jan 2003

(Trinidad and Tobago) The claimant sought to claim damages. The respondent’s insurers became insolvent, and he sought the damages in turn from the insurer’s own insurer. They responded that the claim against them was out of time.
Held: The limitation period in the claim against the insurer’s insurers was the same as it would be as between the original insured and his insurer. The fact that the contract of insurance was entered into was a statutory requirement. That the contract was under seal did not operate to extend the limitation period.

Judges:

Bingham of Cornhill, Hobhouse of Woodborough, Millett, Svott of Foscoe, Rodge of Earslferry LL

Citations:

Times 20-Jan-2003, [2002] UKPC 69, [2003] 1 WLR 670

Links:

Bailii, PC

Commonwealth, Insurance, Limitation

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178782

Roland Brandwood and others v Bakewell Management Ltd: CA 30 Jan 2003

House owners had used vehicular access across a common to get to their houses for many years. The commons owner required them to purchase the right, and they replied that they had acquired the right by lost modern grant and/or by prescription.
Held: The use of a right of way over a common by vehicles (as opposed to use by foot) was specifically an offence under the 1925 Act. Unlawful acts could not be relied upon to found a claim to an easement based upon prescription. This court was bound by clear previous authority, with which it agreed. To apply the doctrine of lost modern grant it was necessary to identify who might have been the parties to such a transaction. None could be found in this case.

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward, Lady Justice Arden, Mr Justice Sullivan

Citations:

Times 05-Feb-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 23, Gazette 20-Mar-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 193, Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 68, Vehicular Access Across Common and Other Land (England) Regulations 2002 11, Prescription Act 1832 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Bakewell Management Ltd v Brandwood and Others ChD 21-Mar-2002
The claimant sought a declaration that he had acquired an easement over land by driving over it, over several years. The land owner denied the easement, saying that section 193 made the claimant’s activity a crime, and that, following Hanning, . .
Cited – Philipps v Halliday HL 1891
The freehold owner sought to recover possession of a pew in a parish church. He brought evidence that for more than 70 years he and his family had used it, repaired it, and kept it under lock and key.
Held: A legal origin for the use ought to . .
Cited – Tehidy Minerals Ltd v Norman CA 1971
The fact that land had been requisitioned by the Ministry of Agriculture between 1941 and 1960 and the 20-odd years’ user relied on as having created the rights had preceded 1941 was a bar to a prescriptive claim to grazing rights under the . .
Cited – Davis v Whitby CA 1974
The court discussed the need for some system of acquisition of right by user.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘the long user as of right should by our law be given a lawful origin if that can be done.’
Stamp LJ said: ‘if long enjoyment of a right . .
Cited – Regina v Oxfordshire County Council and Another, Ex Parte Sunningwell Parish Council HL 25-Jun-1999
When setting out to establish that a piece of land has become a village green with rights of common, the tests are similar to those used in the law of prescription and adverse possession. Accordingly, there is no need to establish a belief in those . .
Applied – Hanning and Others v Top Deck Travel Group Ltd CA 9-Jun-1993
The owner of a common appealed a finding that the neighbouring land owner had acquired by prescription a right of way across the common to use a track for commercial vehicles (buses) to get to the property (the bus depot).
Held: An easement . .
Cited – Neaverson v Peterborough Rural District Council ChD 1902
The 1812 Act provided for the draining, enclosing and improving of a fen which was common land. Under the Act the grass growing on various roadways was vested in the surveyor of highways, who had power to let it for the pasturage of ‘sound and . .
Cited – Cargill v Gotts CA 1981
The Act prohibited abstraction of water from a river without a licence from the Water Authority. The defendant had no such licence, but asserted that having extracted water over many years from the mill pond, he had acquired the right to do so: ‘The . .
Cited – Young v The Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd CA 28-Jul-1944
Court of Appeal must follow Own Decisions
The claimant was injured and received compensation. He then sought to recover again, alleging breach of statutory duty by his employers.
Held: The Court of Appeal was in general bound to follow its own previous decisions. The court considered . .
Cited – Morelle Ltd v Wakeling CA 1955
The plaintiff asserted ownership of leasehold land. A similar situation had arisen in an earlier case befoe the Court of appeal, and the court was asked to decide that that case had been decided per incuriam.
Held: The per incuriam principle . .
Cited – Rickards v Rickards CA 1990
The Court of Appeal considered the circumstances in which it could depart from its own earlier decisions under the residual principle. The court refused to follow a previous decision of the same court because, although the relevant House of Lords . .

Cited by:

Reversed on Appeal – Bakewell Management Limited v Brandwood and others HL 1-Apr-2004
Houses were built next to a common. Over many years the owners had driven over the common. The landowners appealed a decision that they could not acquire a right of way by prescription over the common because such use had been unlawful as a criminal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178785

Hemp v Garland, Administrator and Co: 1843

The Defendant gave a warrant of attorney to secure a debt payable by instalments, the plaintiff to be at liberty, in case of any default, to have judgment and execution for the whole, as if all the periods for payment had expired. Held that, in an action of assumpsit on the implied promise to pay according to the terms of the defeazance, defendant might shew, urider a plea of the Statute of Limitations, that the first default was made more than six years before action; and that this was a complete defence, not only as to instalments due more than six years ago, but also as to those due within that period.
The court found that ‘the cause of action accrued upon the first default for all that then remained owing of the whole debt.’
Lord Denman CJ continued: ‘(t)here was no other contract for forbearance or giving time than that which is expressed in or to be implied from the terms of the warrant of attorney.’

Judges:

Lord Denman CJ

Citations:

[1843] EngR 33, (1843) 4 QB 519, (1843) 114 ER 994, 12 LJQB 134, 3 Gal and Dav 402

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Approved – Reeves v Butcher CA 1891
A five-year loan was granted by the plaintiff to the defendant under a written agreement, providing for a ‘power to call in the same at an earlier period in the events hereinafter mentioned’. The plaintiff agreed not to call in the money for the . .
Cited – BMW Financial Service (GB) Ltd v Hart CA 10-Oct-2012
This appeal is concerned with a point of limitation arising out of a standard hire purchase contract concerning a car. The respondent had failed to maintain his payments, and theappelleants issued a termination notice. He was abroad fr a while, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Contract

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.305727

Steffens v Council and Commission: ECFI 25 Nov 1998

ECJ The limitation period laid down in Article 43 of the Statute of the Court of Justice in respect of actions brought against the Community in matters concerning non-contractual liability cannot begin to run before all the requirements governing the obligation to make good the damage are satisfied and, in particular, in cases in which liability stems from a legislative measure, before the injurious effects of the measure have been produced.
As regards the injury suffered by producers of milk and milk products who, following their entry into non-marketing or conversion undertakings under Regulation No 1078/77, were unable by operation of Regulation No 857/84 to obtain a reference quantity or, consequently, to market any quantity of milk exempt from the additional levy, the limitation period started to run on the date on which, following the expiry of their non-marketing undertaking, the producers concerned could have resumed deliveries of milk if they had not been refused a reference quantity; that is to say, in cases where the undertaking expired before the date on which Regulation No 857/84 entered into force, time started to run on that date.
Moreover, since the damage was not caused instantaneously but continued to be sustained from day to day for a certain period as a result of the maintenance in force of an illegal measure, the time-bar under Article 43 of the Statute applies, with respect to the date of the event which interrupted the limitation period, to the period more than five years prior to that date and does not affect rights which arose during subsequent periods.
So far as regards, specifically, the notion of an event which interrupts a limitation period, the waiver of the right to plead limitation – provided for by the Communication of the Council and the Commission concerning the subsequent adoption of Regulation No 2187/93 which provided for an offer of compensation to the producers concerned – does not constitute such an event. The Communication merely provided for a self-imposed restriction of the right to plead limitation. The producers were able to rely on that waiver in the circumstances referred to in Regulation No 2187/93, since it ceased to have effect at the end of the period allowed for accepting the compensation offer, from which time, in the absence of acceptance of the offer or commencement of proceedings, the institutions once again became entitled to plead limitation.

Citations:

T-222/97, [1998] EUECJ T-222/97

Links:

Bailii

European, Limitation

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173413

BP Exploration Operating Co Ltd v Chevron Shipping Company and Chevron Tankers (Bermuda) Ltd and Chevron Transport Corporation: SCS 13 Apr 2000

Judges:

Lord Cowie and Lord President and Lord Sutherland

Citations:

[2000] ScotCS 105

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Appeal from – BP Exploration Operating Company Ltd v Chevron Shipping Company; Same v Chevron Tankers (Bermuda) Ltd; Same v Chevron Transport Corporation OHCS 26-Jan-1999
Where an action had been delayed beyond the five year prescription period because of an error induced by the party sued, the prescriptive period did not restart until the party was disabused of its mistake. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – BP Exploration Operating Co Ltd v Chevron Transport (Scotland) HL 18-Oct-2001
A ship owned by the defenders caused substantial damage whilst moored at the claimant’s docks. The claim was made against different members of the defendants as they asserted and denied responsibility. The last company asserted that the claim was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.169352

Nelson v Rye and Another: ChD 5 Dec 1995

The claimant, a solo musician appointed the defendant to be his manager collecting the fees and royalties due to him and paying his expenses. Rye was to account to him annually for his net income after deducting his own commission. When the relationship came to an end the plaintiff claimed an account, and the question was whether the account should be limited to the six years before the issue of the writ or whether it should extend over the whole period of the relationship.
Held: Pure breach of trust were not subject to limitation but is so on an allegation of constructive trust. Millett LJ: ‘Accordingly, the defendant’s liability to account for more than six years before the issue of the writ in Nelson v Rye depended on whether he was, not merely a fiduciary (for every agent owes fiduciary duties to his principal), but a trustee, that is to say, on whether he owed fiduciary duties in relation to the money.
Whether he was in fact a trustee of the money may be open to doubt. Unless I have misunderstood the facts or they were very unusual it would appear that the defendant was entitled to pay receipts into his own account, mix them with his own money, use them for his own cash flow, deduct his own commission, and account for the balance to the plaintiff only at the end of the year. It is fundamental to the existence of a trust that the trustee is bound to keep the trust property separate from his own and apply it exclusively for the benefit of his beneficiary. Any right on the part of the defendant to mix the money which he received with his own and use it for his own cash flow would be inconsistent with the existence of a trust. So would a liability to account annually, for a trustee is obliged to account to his beneficiary and pay over the trust property on demand. The fact that the defendant was a fiduciary was irrelevant if he had no fiduciary or trust obligations in regard to the money. If this was the position, then the defendant was a fiduciary and subject to an equitable duty to account, but he was not a constructive trustee. His liability arose from his failure to account, not from his retention and use of the money for his own benefit, for this was something which he was entitled to do.
Unless the defendant was a trustee of the money which he received, however, the claim for an account was barred after six years. The fact that the defendant was a fiduciary did not make his failure to account a breach of fiduciary duty or make him liable to pay equitable compensation. His liability to account arose from his receipt of money in circumstances which made him an accounting party. It did not arise from any breach of duty, fiduciary or otherwise. The defendant was merely an accounting party who had failed to render an account.’

Judges:

Millett LJ

Citations:

Times 05-Dec-1995, [1996] 1 WLR 1378

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Cited – Green and others v Gaul and Another; In re Loftus deceased ChD 18-Mar-2005
The claimants began an action in January 2003 to seek to set aside the appointment of an administrator from December 1991, and to have set aside transfers of property made within the estate.
Held: The limitation period against a personal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.84248

Mortgage Corporation v Alexander Johnson (A Firm): ChD 7 Jul 1999

The rule that in the case of a dispute as to whether a claim was time barred, a fresh action had to be begun to allow the proposition to be tested, did not apply where the delay arose from some deliberate concealment of the cause of action by the proposed defendant, and the deliberateness was itself an issue in the action. Mr David Donaldson QC refused permission to amend to plead breaches of fiduciary duty after expiry of the prima facie limitation period, saying: ‘plainly the deliberateness of a breach of duty can rarely, if ever, be determined in advance of the question whether there was a breach at all. In the case of an amendment pleading such a breach as a cause of action after expiry of the primary limitation period, that would normally mean leave to amend should be refused. That can readily be seen in a case where the plaintiff seeks to raise a new case of breach of contract, rebutting limitation by the suggestion of deliberate breach; but there the deliberateness would not be an essential element of the breach. The position is less obvious where the deliberateness of the breach is an essential element of the cause of action and is therefore pleaded as such as part of the substantive claim; for in such a case without the deliberateness the claim will fail anyway and the limitation defence adds nothing.
there appear to be difficult questions . . as to what ‘deliberate commission of a breach of duty’ would mean and involve in the present case. These would include such questions as precisely what kind of mental state is included in the adjective ‘deliberate’ and what that would amount to in the present case. Does this require consciousness that the conduct is in breach, or recklessness as to whether it is in breach or alternatively, consciousness that the conduct is in some way wrong or recklessness as to that? Or is it sufficient that the acts are intentional without reference to their quality as breaches of duty? ‘

Judges:

Mr David Donaldson QC

Citations:

Times 22-Aug-1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Mortgage Express v Abensons Solicitors (A Firm) ChD 20-Apr-2012
The claimant lender sought damages against the defendant solicitors alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty by them in acting for them on mortgage advances. The defendants now argued that the allowance of an amendment to add the allegation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.83869

Savings and Investment Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) v Fincken: CA 6 Nov 2001

When the court was asked to decide whether a proposed form of amendment to the pleadings would add an issue which was out of time, the court must look to the pleadings before and after the proposed amendment, and the factual issues which would have to be proved to support each version. The mere addition of a new remedy for the same cause of action was not a new claim.

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Robert Walker and Lord Justice Keene

Citations:

Times 15-Nov-2001, Gazette 14-Dec-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1639

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Goode v Martin CA 13-Dec-2001
The claimant had sought to amend her claim for damages for personal injuries. The application had been rejected as introducing a claim not based on the same facts. She had suffered severe head injuries, and had no memory of the accident. She served . .
Cited – Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association Ltd v Trollope and Colls Ltd CA 1986
The employers sued the builders and architects alleging defects in the air conditioning system. Later, cracking and displacement of the walls was discovered, caused allegedly by not having sulphate resisting cement, and defects in the wall ties. . .
Approved – Lloyds Bank Plc v Rogers CA 16-Jul-1999
Where a claim had been made for possession of property under a legal charge, but no claim had been made for financial relief, and a later claim for such relief was made through an amended claim, the loss of the possible defence of limitation was a . .
Appeal from – Savings and Investment Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) v Fincken ChD 2-Mar-2001
The process of testing whether a new cause of action was proposed by an amendment of pleadings to bring into question application of the Limitation Acts, was conducted by asking at what level of abstraction was it claimed that there were one or two . .

Cited by:

See Also – Savings and Investment Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) v Fincken CA 14-Nov-2003
Parties to litigation had made without prejudice disclosures. One party sought to give evidence contradicting the dsclosure, and the other now applied for leave to amend based upon the without prejudice statements to be admitted to demonstrate the . .
Cited – Brown v Rice and Another ChD 14-Mar-2007
The parties, the bankrupt and her trustee, had engaged in a mediation which failed at first, but applicant said an agreement was concluded on the day following. The defendants denied this, and the court as asked to determine whether a settlement had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Limitation

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166780

Long v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council: ChD 29 Mar 1996

The landlord’s agents wrote to the proposed tenant offering a quarterly tenancy of the premises. The tenancy was to commence at a future date. The defendant endorsed the letter and returned it to say he would abide by the terms, and he was allowed into possession. He ceased to pay rent, and eventually came to claim that he had acquired the freehold by adverse possession.
Held: The appropriate limitation period of twelve years ran from the date of the accrual of the right of action. The landlord said that, as a lease in writing, time ran only from the date of a notice to quit. The tenant said no lease in writing existed unless it was dispositive, ie a document creating a leasehold estate. The document was not executed as a deed, and could only create a legal estate if it fell within s54(2) of the 1925 Act. Since it did not take affect in possession, it was reversionary and could not fall within the exception. A tenancy for less than three years but without immediate possession being taken must be by deed: ‘there was no ‘lease in writing’ for the purposes of paragraph 5(1) if the writing, however comprehensively set out and clearly referable to the existence of a new lease, was merely evidential. If there was to be a ‘lease in writing’ the writing itself had to ‘pass an interest’ and ‘operate a lease’ or ‘create an estate.’ and ‘Reversionary lease conferring no immediate right to take possession were altogether excluded form the ambit of section 54(2) of the 1925 Act. Such reversionary leases could take effect only if made by deed. Therefore the tenancy which undoubtedly came into existence was not one created by the tenancy document but rather one which arose by operation of law, by the payment and receipt of rent.’ The action was arguable and should be allowed to proceed.

Judges:

James Munby QC

Citations:

Times 29-Mar-1996, [1996] 2 All ER 683

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 54(2), Limitation Act 1980 Sch1 p5(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Doe d. Landsell v Gower 1851
The tenant was let into parochial property by the parish officers making an entry in the vestry book ‘We the churchwardens and overseers of P., do hereby agree to let to JB of . . . The newly erected cottage . . Situate . . . At the rent of 1s 6d . .
Cited – Moses v Lovegrove CA 29-Apr-1952
The tenant had gone into possession under an oral agreement with a rent book. He ceased to pay rent or acknowledge the landlord’s right in 1938. In 1952 the landlord sought to recover possession, and now appealed a finding that the tenant had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Limitation

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.83180

Rhiannon Anderton v Clwyd County Council (2): QBD 25 Jul 2001

The claim form had been issued only just before the limitation period expired. Under the rules it would have been deemed to have been served on a Sunday, the day before the expiry of the period, but evidence suggested it was not received until after the expiration of the period. The defendant argued there was insufficient evidence of the date of posting to bring into effect the deeming provisions as to the date of service. No certificate had been supplied under 6.14.
Held: There was no evidence as to the class of postage used, and no inference could be drawn that first class post had been used. The rules therefore deemed service out of time, as in fact had occurred. Nor would alternate service be ordered. This was a discretionary remedy, and the circumstances of this case did not justify it.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice McCombe

Citations:

[2001] EWHC QB 161

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 6.7 6.14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council; Anderton v Clwyd County Council; Gower v Bromley London Borough Council; Jarvis v Hampshire County Council HL 28-Jul-2000
The plaintiffs each complained of negligent decisions in his or her education made by the defendant local authorities. In three of them the Court of Appeal had struck out the plaintiff’s claim and in only one had it been allowed to proceed.

Cited by:

Cited – Brennan v Bolt Burdon and Others, London Borough of Islington, Leigh Day and Co CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimant sought damages for injury alleged to have been suffered as tenant of a house after being subjected to carbon monoxide poisoning, and also from her former solicitors for their delay in her claim. The effective question was whether the . .
Appeal from – Anderton v Clwyd County Council (No 2); Bryant v Pech and Another Dorgan v Home Office; Chambers v Southern Domestic Electrical Services Ltd; Cummins v Shell International Manning Services Ltd CA 3-Jul-2002
In each case, the applicant sought to argue that documents which had actually been received on a certain date should not be deemed to have been served on a different day because of the rule.
Held: The coming into force of the Human Rights Act . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Limitation, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.159917

Tabarrok v E D C Lord and Co (A Firm): CA 14 Feb 1997

The appellant wanted to open a pizza restaurant. He and his partners acquired a company for the purpose, which was to take a lease of premises. They sought advice from the defendants who, they said, failed to advise them of the need to be aware of dilapidations and the risks of entering into possession before the lease was formally executed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. When the claimant executed the guarantee he knew already of the risk of liability for dilapidations. The limitation period runs from when damage arises, in this case from the giving of the negligent advice to sign a guarantee. The requested addition of the new party did not arise from an earlier mistake but from the assignment to the plaintiff. The amendment should not be allowed.
Aldous LJ said: ‘Negligent advice which results in a person giving a security by way of a charge over property or a guarantee can cause damage even before the surety is called in or before the person comes to have to honour the guarantee. That can be demonstrated by taking a case which arose in argument, when a company guarantees the loans of another company. That guarantee would have to be disclosed in the company’s accounts as it would be a liability affecting the value of the shares. If the guarantee was entered into upon negligent advice, then the loans might well have to be paid and the guarantee honoured. Thus, the potential liability of the guarantor would be greater with consequent diminution of the value of the company. ‘
Schiemann LJ said: ‘A guarantor cannot be sued on the guarantee by the creditor until there has been default by the principal debtor. It does not follow that the guarantor has not got a right of action in tort against a solicitor who allegedly negligently advised him to enter into the guarantee prior to that time. He may prefer to wait and see whether he is in fact called upon to pay but, as it seems to me, he can sue his solicitor earlier. If he does the trial judge must do what he can to assess the chance of the surety being called upon to pay under the guarantee. If this is significant, then the judge will assess the damage on the basis of the degree of probability of the surety being held liable to pay a particular sum. ‘

Judges:

Hirst LJ, Aldous LJ, Schiemann LJ

Citations:

Times 14-Feb-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 951

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Welsh Development Agency v Redpath Dorman Long Ltd CA 4-Apr-1994
A new claim was not deemed to have been made until the pleading was actually amended for limitation purposes, and should not be allowed after the limitation period had expired. The date of the application for leave to amend was not at issue. The . .
Cited – Lep Air Services v Rolloswin Investments Ltd; Moschi v LEP Air Services HL 1973
The obligation of a guarantor under a contract ‘is not an obligation himself to pay a sum of money to the creditor, but an obligation to see to it that another person, the debtor, does something.’ When a repudiatory breach is accepted by the injured . .
Cited – DW Moore and Co Ltd v Ferrier CA 1988
A solicitor was instructed to prepare an agreement providing for the introduction of a new working director into an insurance broking business carried on by a company. His instructions called for the new director to enter into a restrictive covenant . .
Cited – Forster v Outred and Co CA 1981
A mother signed a mortgage deed charging her property to H as security for a loan to her son. She claimed the solicitor had been negligent in his advice. The solicitor replied that the claim was out of time. The loss accrued not when demand for . .
Cited – Baker v Ollard and Bentley CA 12-May-1982
The plaintiff and a Mr and Mrs Bodman agreed to buy a house. The plaintiff intended to live on the first floor and the Bodmans on the ground floor. The solicitor should have advised them to convey the freehold into their joint names and then to . .
Cited – Hancock Shipping Limited v Kowaski Heavy Industries CA 1992
Leave was sought by the plaintiffs to amend their points of claim in circumstances where it was common ground that the amendments would introduce new causes of action which, if brought in new proceedings, would have been statute-barred. Held . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Professional Negligence

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89686

Green and Another v Wheatley: CA 19 May 1999

Where a garage had been built upon land, and allowed to stay there for over twenty years, title had been acquired by adverse possession, and a right of way which might previously have existed over the land, had also been lost.

Judges:

Stuart Smith LJ, Laws LJ, Jonathan Parker LJ

Citations:

Gazette 03-Jun-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1442

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Limitation

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81003

Cachia and Others v Faluyi: CA 11 Jul 2001

The words of the section had to be construed so as to make it compatible with the human rights convention. Accordingly the term ‘action’ in the Act was to be interpreted to mean an action where a writ was served. Children whose mother had been killed, had the human right to claim compensation for their loss of dependency. Whilst it was legitimate to impose certain restrictions on access to the courts, the effect of the words of the statute had not been considered or intended, and the court would read the section so as to make it compatible with the Act.

Citations:

Times 11-Jul-2001, Gazette 19-Jul-2001

Statutes:

Fatal Accidents Act 1976 2(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Limitation, Human Rights

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78816

Busby v Cooper; Busby v Abbey National plc; Busby v Lumby: CA 2 Apr 1996

The claimant sought damages after having bought a house after receiving an allegedly negligent report on the concrete. She had asked to be allowed to add a third party (the local authority who had passed the building) as a defendant, but the request was outside the primary limitation period and was refused and again on appeal. She now sought to appeal.
Held: Her appeal was allowed. It was within the court’s jurisdiction to try issues relationg to the primary facts which would decide how the limitation rules would be applied. Section 14(10(b) operated to extend the time limit provided in 14(4)(a), and therefore it was not necessary to issue a new set of proceedings. The joining of a third party after the initial limitation period had expired, remained possible. The claim was justiciable.

Citations:

Times 15-Apr-1996

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 14A(4)(a) 14A(4)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Followed – Davies v Reed Stock and Co Ltd 1984
. .
Distinguished – Welsh Development Agency v Redpath Dorman Long Ltd CA 4-Apr-1994
A new claim was not deemed to have been made until the pleading was actually amended for limitation purposes, and should not be allowed after the limitation period had expired. The date of the application for leave to amend was not at issue. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78778

Bowers v Kennedy: IHCS 28 Jun 2000

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.

Citations:

Times 27-Jul-2000, [2000] ScotCS 178, [2000] ScotCS 179

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Land, Limitation, Scotland

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78518