Search Results for: Limitation Act 1939 2(1) 22

Click the case name for better results:

In Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment); aka In re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation): CA 22 Sep 2000

Twins were conjoined (Siamese). Medically, both could not survive, and one was dependent upon the vital organs of the other. Doctors applied for permission to separate the twins which would be followed by the inevitable death of one of them. The parents, devout Roman Catholics, resisted. Held: The parents’ views were subject to the overriding … Continue reading In Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment); aka In re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation): CA 22 Sep 2000

Arnold v Central Electricity Generating Board: HL 22 Oct 1987

The plaintiff was widow and administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband. He had worked from April 1938 to April 1943 for a predecessor to the CEGB. He had been exposed to asbestos dust as a result of his employer’s negligence and breach of duty. In 1981 he began to suffer mesothelioma, a long-delayed … Continue reading Arnold v Central Electricity Generating Board: HL 22 Oct 1987

McDonnell v Congregation of Christian Brothers Trustees (Formerly Irish Christian Brothers) and others: HL 4 Dec 2003

In 2000, the claimant sought damages for sexual abuse from before 1951. The issue was as to whether the limitation law which applied was that as at the date of the incidents, or that which applied as at the date when he would be deemed uner the modern law to have acquired knowledge of the … Continue reading McDonnell v Congregation of Christian Brothers Trustees (Formerly Irish Christian Brothers) and others: HL 4 Dec 2003

Roberts v Crown Estate Commissioners: CA 20 Feb 2008

The commissioners sought to claim title to a foreshore by adverse possession. The claimant asserted that he had acquired title in his capacity of Lord Marcher of Magor which had owned the bed of the estuary since the Norman Conquest, and that the Crown could not acquire title by adverse possession, by a wrong against … Continue reading Roberts v Crown Estate Commissioners: CA 20 Feb 2008

Fogg and Ledgard v The Secretary of State for Defence, Short: Admn 13 Dec 2005

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision of the respondent not to name the wreck of the merchant ship SS STORAA as a protected site under the 1986 Act. It had been a merchant ship forming part of a convoy, and was sunk by enemy action in the Second World War. Held: The review … Continue reading Fogg and Ledgard v The Secretary of State for Defence, Short: Admn 13 Dec 2005

Central Electricity Generating Board v Halifax Corporation: HL 1963

Under the 1947 Act, the assets of electricity undertakings were transferred to to electricity boards. Property held by local authorities as authorised undertakers should, on vesting day, vest in the relevant board. A question arose as to whether certain monies had been held by the local authority and the question was referred to the minister, … Continue reading Central Electricity Generating Board v Halifax Corporation: HL 1963

Legal Services Commission v Henthorn: QBD 4 Feb 2011

The claimant sought to recover overpayments said to have been made to the defendant barrister in the early 1990s. Interim payments on account had been made, but these were not followed by final accounts. The defendant, now retired, said that the claims were defeated by limitation and laches and were an abuse of process because … Continue reading Legal Services Commission v Henthorn: QBD 4 Feb 2011

Leivers v Barber Walker and Co Ltd: CA 1943

Goddard LJ (dissenting) said that section 2(1)(d) of the 1939 Act changed the former position altogether, leaving the provision for limitation as regards specialties to apply only to deeds and other documents under seal (or to claims other than for the recovery of money). Judges: Goddard LJ Citations: [1943] KB 385 Statutes: Limitation Act 1939 … Continue reading Leivers v Barber Walker and Co Ltd: CA 1943

Harkness v Bell’s Asbestos and Engineering Limited: CA 1966

The plaintiff’s solicitors had applied to a district registrar for leave of the court for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1963 when they ought to have made the application to a judge in chambers. The district registrar ordered that Section 2(1) of the Limitation Act 1939 should not afford a defence to the proposed … Continue reading Harkness v Bell’s Asbestos and Engineering Limited: CA 1966

Marren v Dawson Bentley and Co Ltd: 1961

Compensation was sought for injuries received in the course of employment. Held: The limitation period was to be calculated to have started on the day after the occurrence which founded the claim, the day itself being excluded from the calculation. Judges: Havers J Citations: [1961] 2 All ER 270, [1961] 2 QB 135 Statutes: Limitation … Continue reading Marren v Dawson Bentley and Co Ltd: 1961