In 2002 the SFO was investigating allegations that drug companies were selling generic drugs, including penicillin-based antibiotics and warfarin, to the National Health Service at artificially sustained prices. To further the investigation the SFO obtained search warrants and executed them. The company challenged the release of the documents recovered to other government departments. They had … Continue reading Regina (Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd) v Serious Fraud Office: CA 11 Nov 2004
The defendant appealed against a order finding it was liable for the fees claimed by its former solicitors. They had said that the claim for costs was barred by limitation. Held: The defendant’s appeal failed; a solicitor’s claim for his costs, billed but not yet fixed by assessment or agreement, fell within the phrase ‘debt … Continue reading Phillips and Co (A Firm) v Bath Housing Co-Operative Ltd: CA 11 Dec 2012
The court looked at the date from which the limitation period ran in an action for professional negligence: ‘It is clear from the words of the section itself . . that it is concerned with knowledge of facts, as opposed to knowledge of matters of law. In particular, subsection (9) specifically excludes knowledge that the … Continue reading Haward and Others v Fawcetts (A Firm) and Another: CA 11 Mar 2004
The claimant had been defrauded by a customer of the defendant bank. He brought a claim against the bank, saying that they knew or ought to have known of the fraudster’s activities, and were liable. The Bank denied that the UK courts had jurisdiction saying in particular that no claim arose because it would be … Continue reading Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria: QBD 8 Apr 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
Estimates of the real values of houses which had been taken as security for loans were not sufficiently precise to forewarn a lender of the damage resulting from earlier negligent valuations, and accordingly the lender was not fixed with notice by the estimates, and time did not begin to run against them. Citations: Times 11-Oct-1999 … Continue reading Mortgage Corporation v Lambert and Co (A Firm) and Another: ChD 11 Oct 1999
Claim may be added outside limitation period where based on same facts. Citations: Times 11-Apr-1996 Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 35 Citing: Appealed to – Lloyds Bank Plc v Rogers and Another CA 20-Dec-1996 An out of time claim for defamation was allowed after late disclosures by the defendant bank in the case. . . Cited … Continue reading Lloyd’s Bank Plc v Rogers and Another: QBD 11 Apr 1996
A coroner was obliged to sit with a jury under the section 13(2) of the 1926 Act where the deceased, who was watching a demonstration, was struck a violent blow on the back of his head from which he died.Bridge LJ said: ‘The key to the nature of that limitation is to be found, I … Continue reading Regina v Her Majesty’s Coroner at Hammersmith ex parte Peach: CA 1980
The claimant sought damages alleging inter alia fraud by the defendant in a company sale between the parties. The defendant now sought to have set aside the service on him in Lebanon, saying that The English court was not the forum coveniens. He also said that the claim was out of time. Held: The application … Continue reading Abela and Others v Baadarani and Another: ChD 28 Jan 2011
UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – service charges – application by tenant under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for a determination of the service charges payable in respect of periods more than six years prior to the date of application – preliminary decision of LVT finding appellant time barred on basis of … Continue reading Parissis v Blair Court St Johns Wood Management Ltd: UTLC 11 Nov 2014
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 section 29. Held: The letter should not be admitted. Any admission in the first letter could not … Continue reading Ofulue and Another v Bossert: HL 11 Mar 2009
The pursuers had been shareholders in a company which sold spring water. The defenders took shares in the company in return for promises as to the promotion and distribution of the bottled water. The pursuers said that they had failed to promote it in the way promised. The company failed. At first instance the judge … Continue reading Hamilton and others v Allied Domecq Plc (Scotland): HL 11 Jul 2007
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. The judge had decided that the defendant had not established factual possession for the … Continue reading Chambers v London Borough of Havering: CA 20 Dec 2011
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 very narrow ground that there was no question of the first action having being … Continue reading Chappell v Cooper: CA 1980
The court was asked ‘when an innocent vendor whose signature is forged on the documents for the conveyance of land suffers damage, for the purposes of limitation of an action arising from a solicitor’s breach of duty. Is it on the exchange of contracts, in which case the present claim is said to be time … Continue reading Bowling and Co Solicitors v Edehomo: ChD 2 Mar 2011
Reasons for extension of time for bringing claim. Walden Smith HHJ [2016] EWHC 527 (QB) Bailii Limitation Act 1980 33 England and Wales Limitation Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.562176
The land-owner had planning permission to erect a barn, conditional on its use for agricultural purposes. He built inside it a house and lived there from 2002. In 2006. He then applied for a certificate of lawful use. The inspector allowed it, and the Council appealed. The Council now also argued that parliament could not … Continue reading Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another v Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council: SC 6 Apr 2011
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 action as an action founded upon … Continue reading National Ability Sa v Tinna Oils and Chemicals Ltd: CA 11 Dec 2009
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. Held: The defence in fact was that the claimant had both brought the claim too early because … Continue reading Pegasus Management Holdings Sca and Another v Ernst and Young (A Firm) and Another: ChD 11 Nov 2008
The House gave guidance how it would treat an invitation to depart from a previous decision of the House. Such a course was possible, but the direction was not an ‘open sesame’ for a differently constituted committee to prefer their views to those of the committee which determined the decision unanimously or by a majority. … Continue reading Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent): HL 1966
The claimant sought to have disapplied the limitation period in his defamation claim. The claimant said that in the case of Cain, the Steedman case had not been cited, and that the decisions were incompatible, and that Cain was to be prefered. Held: The appeal failed. The two cases could be reconciled. Considerations in defamation … Continue reading Brady v Norman: CA 9 Feb 2011
The claimant as PR of her husband’s estate sought damages for misrepresentation and, against his former solicitiors for negligence in regards to the boundaries of a property he had bought from the first defendants using the second defendants as his solicitors. The first defendant said the claim was time barred. The six year period had … Continue reading Green v Eadie and Others: ChD 18 Nov 2011
The claimants said that agents of the defendant had unlawfully accessed their mobile phone systems. The court was now asked whether the agent (M) could rely on the privilege against self incrimination, and otherwise as to the progress of the case. The claimant asserted that their claim was an intellectual property claim, allowing section 72 … Continue reading Gray v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another; Coogan v Same: ChD 25 Feb 2011
Three defendants applied for summary strike out of the claim against them saying the claim was now time barred: ‘It raises the issue of whether the cause of action for breach of the implied undertaking in an exclusive jurisdiction clause arises once . .
The plaintiff, on arriving at the airport found that his luggage had been lost. The defendant denied liability saying he had not notified his claim within the requisite period.
Held: Elementary justice requires that the rules by which the . .
The cause of action in an action for professional negligence in purchase of land ran from the date of exchange of contracts not completion, and the limitation period was to be calculated accordingly. . .
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 . .
LRA Application for first registration of land – objection based on adverse possession – whether application for first registration is ‘action for recovery of land’ – consideration of provisions of Limitation Act . .
The claimant bought two airline tickets, but did not use them. Ten years later he requested a refund.
Held: Any appeal would be hopeless. . .
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 . .
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 . .
The bankrupt, while solvent had acquired a property which was first put in his own sole name, but then transferred to his wife outwardly ‘in consideration of love and affection’. Several years later, on the bankruptcy, the trustee sought to have the . .
LRA Adverse Possession – Registration with possessory freehold title – Limitation of action – Alteration of the register – Meaning of alteration and rectification – Land Registration Act 2002 s 9(1)(c),(5), s . .
The employers appealed against a finding that a claim by former employees was not statute barred. . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
The court has a power to order substitution of a party though the limitation period, and even the ‘long stop’ limitation period had expired. The claimant child sought damages after a vaccination. The batch had been attributed to the wrong manufacturer, and the error only came to light outside the limitation period. It was said … Continue reading Horne-Roberts (a Child) v Smithkline Beecham plc and Another: CA 18 Dec 2001
The claimant appealed against a finding that having once already issued a claim, a second claim was out of time, not accepting that she had had the knowledge effective to commence the limitation period. Held: Judge LJ had ‘difficulty in perceiving how in any case where a claimant has sought advice and taken proceedings, it … Continue reading Sniezek v Bundy (Letchworth) Limited: CA 7 Jul 2000
Burden is on the plaintiff to show when time began in personal injuries action. Citations: Times 05-Jul-1995 Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 11 Limitation Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79675
The claimant sought damages following a road accident against an uninsured driver through the Motor Insurer’s Bureau. The Bureau later required him to issue proceedings also against the car owner on the ground that he had permitted the driving. At first it was held the limitation period was six years for such a claim, but … Continue reading Norman v Ali and Another, Norman v Aziz: CA 13 Jan 2000
A claim against an employer for a failure to give advice which might have mitigated personal injury is not itself a claim for personal injuries, and so is subject to the normal three year limitation period. Citations: Times 14-May-1999 Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 11 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Personal Injury, Limitation Updated: 10 May 2022; … Continue reading Gaud v Leeds Health Authority: CA 14 May 1999
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 renewed at the end of 12 months, and the limitation period expired … Continue reading Deerness v John R Keeble and Son (Brantham) Ltd: HL 1983
The Police appealed from a finding that the claim brought by a former constable was not out of time. He had worked under cover making drugs purchases, and had become addicted to heroin. Held: The appeal failed. Judges: Sir Terence Etherton MR Citations: [2017] EWCA Civ 1992, [2018] 4 WLR 32, [2017] WLR(D) 818 Links: … Continue reading Greater Manchester Police v Carroll: CA 1 Dec 2017
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for personal injury which had been rejected on basis that it was out of time. He had contracted cancer in 2002, but had recovered. He later came to attribute this to exposure to asbestos at work in the docks up to 1967. He made his claim in … Continue reading Collins v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and Others: CA 23 May 2014
Responsibility for IRA bombing fixed The claimant sought a finding that the defendant had been responsible for a IRA bombing in 1982 which killed her father and three other soldiers and injured 31 others. He had been acquitted at a criminal trial. Held: The limitation period was extended: ‘As was said in Carroll, the burden … Continue reading Young v Downey: QBD 18 Dec 2019
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 under the 1980 Act. They said that they had only acquired the knowledge to found an action in 2007 on the … Continue reading Ministry of Defence v AB and Others: SC 14 Mar 2012
Each claimant sought damages for a criminal assault for which the defendant was said to be responsible. Each claim was to be out of the six year limitation period. In the first claim, the proposed defendant had since won a substantial sum from the National Lottery. They complained that the Limitation Act gave the court … Continue reading A v Hoare; H v Suffolk County Council, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening; X and Y v London Borough of Wandsworth: CA 12 Apr 2006
The claimant wished to claim damages after suffering serious injury as a child having been vaccinated with a drug manufactured by a defendant (APMSD). The defendant had relied on a defence saying that the limitation period under the Directive was 10 years. The claimant had then to choose another company (APSA) as defendant. On a … Continue reading O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur Sa: SC 26 May 2010
The plaintiff had a history of circulatory problems in his legs. He underwent surgery losing his leg. The question was when he should have sought advice as to why an attempted by-pass operation had resulted in one leg having to be amputated. He enquired why only some 10 years after the event. He was told … Continue reading Forbes v Wandsworth Health Authority: CA 21 Mar 1996
The defendant appealed against the disapplication of section 11 of the 1980 Act under section 33. Held: The appeal succeeded. The defendant had not contributed significantly to the delay: ‘the defendant received claims quite different in magnitude from anything notified to them before, almost seven years to the day after the accident, and where there … Continue reading McDonnell and Another v Walker: CA 24 Nov 2009
Limitation operates as a defence, and therefore it is for he who sets it up to establish it, and prove that the claim was time barred. Once the initial limitation period had elapsed, it was for the plaintiff to assert that the date of knowledge . .
Appeal from extension of limitation period to allow claim for alleged deliberately inflicted personal injury on the claimant when a child in their care. . .
A claim for damages for an unwanted pregnancy occurring after a failed sterilisation. The plaintiff claimed damages for her economic losses. She issued only four years after the birth.
Held: The limitation period ran from the date of . .
The plaintiff issued proceedings against her father and mother, alleging physical and sexual abuse against her father and want of parental care against her mother. The claim against the father was in trespass, but that against her mother was in . .
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 . .
The claimant had delivered his claim form to the court, but it was not processed until after the limitation period had expired. The defendant appealed a finding that the claimant had brought the cliam within the necessary time.
Held: The claim . .
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 . .
The claimant said that he had been exposed him to excessive noise during the course of his employment, causing his deafness. He noticed his hearing problems in 2001. He was also aware that exposure to noise could cause hearing loss, but did not . .
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 . .
The defendant appealed a finding of negligence and the associated costs order.
Held: The claimant had obtained an order allowing an extension of the limitation period in order to pursue the claim. Whilst the substantial damages award should be . .
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 . .
The claimant had undergone heart surgery as an infant in 1976, and claimed damages for professional negligence. The procedure involved a dangerous procedure, a resection of coarctation. As a consequence, the Claimant suffered a number of problems . .
The defendant had been convicted and sentenced for the attempted rape of the claimant. He had subsequently won a substantial sum on the lottery, and she now sought damages. He replied that the action was statute barred being now 16 years old. The . .
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. . .
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 . .
The claimant sought to counter a defence that his claim was out of time, saying that he had been misinformed as to the name of his employer.
Held: A person could not sue simply ‘his employer’. He must find a name, particularly as against a . .
The court considered a claim for the adverse possesion of land. Held: Dyson LJ said: ‘to establish a claim of adverse possession for the requisite period of 12 years it is necessary to establish: (1) actual possession; (2) an intention to possess. That has two elements. First a subjective element requiring the person, the trespasser, … Continue reading Inglewood Investments Company Ltd v Baker: CA 8 Nov 2002
Judges: Walker J Citations: [2019] EWHC 1011 (QB) Links: Bailii Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Limitation, Contract Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.636175
Parliament’s Approval if statute rights affected In a referendum, the people had voted to leave the European Union. That would require a notice to the Union under Article 50 TEU. The Secretary of State appealed against an order requiring Parliamentary approval before issuing the notice, he saying that the notice could be given under the … Continue reading Miller and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union: SC 24 Jan 2017
The court considered the application of CPR 3.9(1) to a decision relating to the relief of a sanction. Held: Lord Justice Brooke said: ‘It is essential for courts, exercising their discretion on an occasion like this, to consider each matter listed under CPR 3.9(1) systematically in the same way as it is now well known … Continue reading Bansal v Cheema: CA 2 Mar 2000
The court was asked how to set the time at which the claimant became fixed with knowledge of her injury. They ‘found it unnecessary to attempt any final reconciliation, because ‘on any sort of objective approach’ the claimant should have made inquiries long before she did. ‘ Judges: Simon Brown LJ, Robert Walker LJ and … Continue reading Fenech v East London and City Health Authority: CA 2000
The Society had repossessed and sold the mortgagors’ house in 1990. It knew then that there was a shortfall, but took no further recovery proceedings until 2002. What was the date from which the relevant limitation period began to run? Though the deed provided for payment of monthly instalments, it did not include an express … Continue reading Wilkinson and Another v West Bromwich Building Society: CA 30 Jul 2004
The claimant sought damages for personal injuries after ingesting asbestos while employed as a joiner by the defendant. The defendant appealed an order allowing the claim to go ahead despite being out of time. Citations: [2004] EWCA Civ 920 Links: Bailii Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 33 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – KR and … Continue reading Buckler v J F Finnegan Ltd: CA 21 Jun 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: Proceedings under the 1954 Act were not within the proceedings listed by CPR 19.5 since the … Continue reading Parsons and Another v George and Another: CA 13 Jul 2004
In 1975 the tenant sought to exercise his right to purchase the freehold reversion of his property. The landlord argued that the rent payable precluded any such entitlement. Under the law as then understood, the landlord’s contention appeared correct. The leaseholder proceeded no further. In 1980 the law was clarified so as to indicate that … Continue reading Collin v Duke of Westminster: CA 1985
Judges: The Hon Mr Justice Fancourt Citations: [2022] EWHC 1222 (Ch) Links: Bailii Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 32(1)(b) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Limitation Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.678298
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
The claimant was a mental patient under compulsory detention, and complained that he had been subjected to periods of seclusion. Held: The appeal succeeded. The hospital had failed to follow the appropriate Code of Practice. The Code was not obligatory, but following it would generally ensure that a patient’s rights were not infringed. It recognised … Continue reading Munjaz v Mersey Care National Health Service Trust And the Secretary of State for Health, the National Association for Mental Health (Mind) Respondent interested;: CA 16 Jul 2003
The appellant had challenged an enforcement notice requiring him to pull down a partially built house. The issue was when the four year limitation period had commenced. Did the four year limitation period commence when the works were complete, or when the building was complete? Held: The inspector had found the building to be a … Continue reading Sage v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and others: HL 10 Apr 2003
The defendants resisted claims by lenders for the payment of mortgage debts. In each case the lender had exercised the power of sale before issuing proceedings for possession. The defendants queried the limitation period applicable. Held: The exercise of the power of sale did not mean that the original mortgage debt changed. The recovery of … Continue reading Bristol and West plc v Bartlett and Another; Paragon Finance plc v Banks; Halifax plc v Grant: CA 31 Jul 2002
The claimants had issued defamation proceedings. The defendant said they were out of time, having begun the action more than one year after the alleged publication, but accepted that they had not been prejudiced in their defence. The court refused to extend the period. The lack of prejudice to the defendant was not in itself … Continue reading Steedman, Clohosy, Smith, Kiernan, Newman, Creevy, Anderson v The British Broadcasting Corporation: CA 23 Oct 2001
Although a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, as a claim in equity, was not subject to the same limitation periods imposed by the Act as claims in tort or contract, a court exercising an equitable jurisdiction should apply similar periods under the equitable principle of acquiescence. A six year limitation period should be applied … Continue reading Companhia De Seguros Imperio v Heath (REBX) Ltd and Others: CA 20 Jul 2000
The council entered upon land belonging to the company in accordance with the compulsory purchase procedures in 1982, but the company did not bring its claim for compensation until 1992. The council said the were out of time. Held: Section 9 applies to claims for compensation for compulsory purchase. The mere fact that a party … Continue reading London Borough of Hillingdon v ARC Limited (No 2): CA 16 Jun 2000
Where a personal injury action had been delayed for five years by bad advice from solicitors and counsel, the court’s discretion should be exercised to allow the plaintiff to proceed with her claim, not herself being responsible for the delay.Sir Christopher Staughton (referring to Whitfield v Durham) said: ‘If that passage means that as a … Continue reading Das v Ganju: CA 31 Mar 1999
Citations: [1998] EWCA Civ 1000 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – McDonnell and Another v Walker CA 24-Nov-2009 The defendant appealed against the disapplication of section 11 of the 1980 Act under section 33. Held: The appeal succeeded. The defendant had not contributed significantly to the delay: ‘the defendant received claims … Continue reading A B and others v Liverpool City Council; Nugent Care Society (Formerly Catholic Social Services [Liverpool]) and Trustees of National Children’s Home and Orphanage Registered: CA 15 Jun 1998
The company sought compensation for land taken under compulsory purchase powers by the defendants several years before. It now appealed against the defeat of its claim as time-barred. Held: The appeal failed. The limitation period for a claim for a compensation payment runs from the date of the entry into possession of the land by … Continue reading London Borough of Hillingdon v ARC Limited: CA 7 Apr 1998
Appeal from a judgment that the claim for damages for industrial disease, commenced by the respondent against the appellants had been brought by the respondent within three years of his date of knowledge for the purposes of section 11(4) and section 14 of the Limitation Act 1980, and that, in any event, he would override … Continue reading Parsons v Warren and Another: CA 31 Jan 2002
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 than six years after the work had been concluded. The authority argued … Continue reading Swansea City Council v Glass: CA 1992
The defendant had in 1993 obtained legal aid. Work was done but the certificate was then revoked. The Commission sought repayment of the sums paid on account to his solicitors. He replied that the claim was out of time. The Commission argued that time did not run until the sum was fixed. Held: The Commission’s … Continue reading Legal Services Commission v Rasool: CA 5 Mar 2008
The European Court had found the UK to have unlawfully treated differently payment of franked dividends between subsidiaries of UK companies according to whether all the UK subsidiaries were themselves UK based, thus prejudicing European subsidiaries, breach of EU Treaty guarantees of freedom of establishment and of movement of capital. The court was now asked … Continue reading Test Claimants In The Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Inland Revenue: SC 23 May 2012
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 aside as a fraud on his creditors. Held: To have such orders set … Continue reading Hill (As Trustee In Bankruptcy of Nurkowski) v Spread Trustee Company Ltd and Another: CA 12 May 2006
UTLC SERVICE CHARGES – jurisdiction of leasehold valuation tribunal – construction of lease – whether rent payable by a management company in respect of the common parts recoverable as part of the service charge – Limitation Act 1980 s.21 Citations: [2010] UKUT 75 (LC) Links: Bailii Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 21 Jurisdiction: England and Wales … Continue reading Warwickshire Hamlets Ltd and Another v Gedden and Others: UTLC 26 Mar 2010
The plaintiff had been a passenger in a car, and sought damages from the car driver, from an injury occurring as the car crashed. Proceedings were not begun within the three year limit. The proceedings were begun on the basis of an implausible version of events which he had agreed with the defendant shortly after … Continue reading Samuels v Walker: CA 16 May 1997
Where a tenant under a grazing license had stayed over after the end of the tenancy, and had been refused a renewed licence, and had continued to graze the land for over twelve years, the mere overstaying was not enough to evidence an animus possidendi, an intention to assert an interest contrary to that of … Continue reading J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Another v Caroline Graham and Another: CA 6 Feb 2001
The claimant, Capacious Investments Ltd, brought proceedings against Tang’s estate for damages for the loss of use and occupation, and also an account of profits and damages for loss and damage incurred, for example by encumbering the property with leases. It obtained an account of profits and an award of compensatory damages as a result … Continue reading Personal Representatives of Tang Man Sit v Capacious Investments Ltd: PC 18 Dec 1995
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 on the ground that they were statute barred under section 24(1) should be … Continue reading Lowsley and Another v Forbes (Trading As I E Design Services): HL 29 Jul 1998
Husband and wife were involved in a custody dispute. The father made serious but false allegations to the press. She now claimed in defamation, but he relied upon limitation. She said the facts had only become known to her much later. Held: ‘Facts relevant to cause’ referred to those facts necessary to be pleaded but … Continue reading C v Mirror Group Newspapers and Others: CA 21 Jun 1996
The claimants challenged the instruction that they must squat whilst undergoing a strip search in prison. A dog search had given cause to supect the presence of explosives in the wing, and the officers understood that such explosives might be hidden anally. Held: The common thread in all the cases has been the search to … Continue reading Regina v Carroll and Al-Hasan and Secretary of State for Home Department: Admn 16 Feb 2001
The defendant company traded as A and J Bull Containers. They hired out a builder’s skip which was left out, unlit, on the highway at night. A cyclist rode into it and died. An information was laid against ‘A J Bull Ltd’, charging an offence under the Highways Act 1980. The hearing took place after … Continue reading Marco (Croydon) Ltd v Metropolitan Police Commissioner: QBD 1983
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 could not do so. He was not prejudiced by the primary limitation period since he … Continue reading Walkley v Precision Forgings Ltd: HL 1979
