The limitation period has nothing to do with the procedural machinery of enforcing a judgment when one was obtained.
Judges:
Slade LJ
Citations:
[1991] Ch 339, [1990] 2 WLR 1084, [1990] 2 All ER 416, [1990] 134 SJ 28
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – WT Lamb and Sons v Rider CA 1948
An interlocutory order is generally not regarded as final in the sense of barring a further application on the ground of res judicata: ‘Execution is essentially a matter of procedure – machinery which the Court can, subject to the rules from time to . .
Applied – 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 by:
Applied – 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 . .
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.
Banking, Limitation
Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.183482