Claim included in statement of case covering multiple references filed within time – notice of reference filed after expiry of limitation period – whether claim referred to Tribunal within time – s.1, Land Compensation Act 1961 – s.9, Limitation Act 1980 – rr.7 and 28, Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010 Martin Rodger, … Continue reading Five Oaks Land Ltd v London Borough of Redbridge (Compensation – Limitation): UTLC 2 Dec 2021
The claimant had been convicted and served his time for possession of a large collection of obsolete or antique firearms. He now sought their return. The police replied that he was in any event out of time. Held: ‘Section 3(2) of the 1980 Act is, at least in the context of that Act, a somewhat … Continue reading Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis v Meekey: Admn 12 Jan 2021
‘This appeal is concerned with the words ‘until the plaintiff has discovered the . . concealment . . or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it’ in section 32(1) of the Limitation Act 1980. Specifically, how does that section apply when the defendant deliberately conceals a relevant fact so that (1) it cannot reasonably be … Continue reading OT Computers Ltd v Infineon Technologies Ag and Another: CA 14 Apr 2021
Whether the six-year limitation period for claims founded on the tort of deceit, under section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980 (‘LA 1980’ or ‘the 1980 Act’), at least arguably applies ‘by analogy’, pursuant to section 36(1) of the 1980 Act, to a claim for equitable rescission of a contract for fraudulent misrepresentation. Lord Justice … Continue reading IGE USA Investments Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs: CA 14 Apr 2021
His Honour Judge Lewis  EWHC 3052 (QB) Bailii Limitation Act 1980 4A 32A England and Wales Defamation, Limitation Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.669938
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
Foetus has no Established Human Rights The Claimants sought a declaration that section 1(1)(d) of the Abortion Act 1967, as amended, is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’), as well as some other remedies. The claimant had Down’s Syndrome, and complained the readiness to abort foetuses with identified Down’s genes – more … Continue reading Crowter and Others, Regina (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Health And Social Care: Admn 23 Sep 2021
Innocent Co-Trustee not Liable for Default Proceedings were brought by former clients against their former solicitors. One of the partners stole money held in the firm’s client account on behalf of the claimants. The other two partners were entirely innocent of, and in no way implicated in, the frauds. Some of the losses sued for … Continue reading Dixon Coles and Gill (A Former Firm) v Baines, Bishop of Leeds and Another: CA 20 Jul 2021
Interpretation of Exclusion Clauses The plaintiffs had contracted with the defendants for the provision of a night patrol service for their factory. The perils the parties had in mind were fire and theft. A patrol man deliberately lit a fire which burned down the factory. It was an unresolved issue whether the employee intended to … Continue reading Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd: HL 14 Feb 1980
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 appellants said they had suffered abuse while resident at children’s homes run by the respondents. The respondents denied the allegations and said that they were also out of time. The claims were brought many years after the events. Held: The issues had been properly examined in the Court of Session and a discretion exercised. … Continue reading Bowden v Poor Sisters of Nazareth and others and similar: HL 21 May 2008
Where an action had been begun on basis of allegations of negligence and breach of trust, new allegations of fraud where quite separate new causes of claim, and went beyond amendments and were disallowed outside the relevant limitation period. Sections 23 and 36 and the absence of express statutory mention in the 1980 Act of … Continue reading Paragon Finance Plc (Formerly Known As National Home Loans Corporation Plc v D B Thakerar and Co (a Firm); Ranga and Co (a Firm) and Sterling Financial Services Limited: CA 21 Jul 1998
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
LRA KEYWORDS: documentary title; claim for adverse possession of land part of which formerly constituted a right of way; alteration of the dominant and servient tenements; abandonment of right of way; Limitation . .
The issue is whether this clinical negligence claim is time-barred by virtue of the provisions of the Limitation Act 1980 . .
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 . .
An abortion conducted in the tenth week of pregnancy was not condemned. The Commission construed Article 2 to be subject to an implied limitation to allow a balancing act between the interests of mother and unborn child. . .
Whether the Chief Master was correct to conclude that it was sufficiently clear that a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation was barred by the provisions of sections 2 and 32(1) of Limitation Act 1980 to justify the grant of summary judgment in . .
The issue on this appeal is whether the claim is barred by the Limitation Act 1980. It turns on when damage was first sustained. . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 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 . .
(Australia) Lord Wilbeforce said: ‘A breach of a repudiatory character . . entitles the innocent party, unless he waives the breach, to claim to be released from further performance of his obligations under the contract. So far their Lordships of . .
LRA KEYWORDS – Adverse possession claim – Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002 – effect of Sections 96 and 97 of the 2002 Act – acknowledgment of title – Section 29 of the Limitation Act 1980 – Without . .
LRA Adverse possession – locus standi of a person not having an interest in the land – adding new parties – holding a substantive hearing in absence of a party – Limitation Act 1980 Section 15; Schedule 1, . .
‘Does the non-payment of a court fee mean that time continues to run for limitation purposes in respect of a new claim within existing proceedings? In my view it does not. If a new claim which is not otherwise abusive is made by amendment within the . .
The court considered the meaning of ‘war’ in the context of an insurance contract: ‘The issue is not whether the events in Lebanon were recognised in the United Kingdom as amounting to a civil war in the sense in which the term is used in Public . .
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 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. . .
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: . .
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 . .
Breaches of articles in the European Treaty by the UK government were tortious in nature, and the appropriate limitation period for claiming was governed by section 2 (six years). The government had failed to allow European fishing vessels into its . .
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 . .
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
Lord Kerr, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs  UKSC 14,  2 BCLC 311,  WLR(D) 130 Bailii, Bailii Summary Limitation Act 1980 21 32 England and Wales Limitation Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.605620
Evans-Lombe J said: ‘In my judgment, section 21(1) of the Limitation Act 1980, following the decision of Mr Justice Danckwerts in the G.L. Baker Ltd case and the obiter dicta of Lord Esher and Bowen LJ in Soar v Ashwell, is to be construed as applying to accessories to the fraudulent breaches of trust of … Continue reading Statek Corporation v Alford and Another: ChD 17 Jan 2008
The first defendant solicitor misappropriated money from an estate he was administering. The beneficiaries later commenced proceedings against his wife, alleging knowing assistance. She said that that claim was out of time. The claimant responded said that any limitation period was disapplied as ‘any fraud or fraudulent breach of trust to which the trustee was … Continue reading Cattley and Another v Pollard and Another: ChD 7 Dec 2006
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 first defendant had been found dishonest through non-disclosure, and that section 21 … Continue reading 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
Bank not liable for fraud of customer The appellant sought to make the bank liable for a fraud committed by the Bank’s customer, the appellant saying that the Bank knew or ought to have known of the fraud. The court was asked whether a party liable only as a dishonest assistant was a trustee, and … Continue reading Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria: SC 19 Feb 2014
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) provides that no period of limitation prescribed by the Act applies to an action by a … Continue reading Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd v Fielding and Another: CA 17 Jun 2016
The court considered the application of section 21 of the 1980 Act to a claim against a company director for breach of fiduciary duty. . .
The claimant alleged that he had been defrauded and accused the appellant of involvement in the fraud. The Bank appealed against a finding that the claim against it was not time limited.
Held: The appeal failed. The action was by a beneficiary . .
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 . .
The parties had been involved in investing in an airline to secure its future, but it was now said that one party had broken the shareholders’ or voting agreement in not allowing further investments on a pari passu basis. The defendants argued that . .
Parties had entered into a shareholders’ agreement as to voting arrengemets within a company. Thay disputed whether votes had been used in reach of that agreement, particularly as to the issue of new shares and their allotment, but the court now . .
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 . .
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 . .
Blackburne J assumed that a plea of accessory liability was covered by s.21(1)(a). . .
A claim against a company director which alleged a misapplication of company assets involving a fraudulent, or dishonest breach of trust, was not subject to a limitation period. A company was alleged to have fraudulently hidden certain profits. The . .
The Claimants sought an order directing the Defendant to provide a full account of his dealings with the assets of the two trusts as a trustee or as a de facto trustee.
Held: The court has a discretion whether or not to make an order for an . .
The claimant appellant alleged that properties she owned were transferred to the first defendant under undue influence or other unconscionable conduct by the second and third defendants. The claim was dismissed. Three years later she claimed to set that judgment aside having been obtained by fraud. To support the allegation she brought evidence not available … Continue reading Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd and Others: SC 20 Mar 2019
Partners Liable for Dishonest Act of Solicitor A solicitor had been alleged to have acted dishonestly, having assisted in a fraudulent breach of trust by drafting certain documents. Contributions to the damages were sought from his partners. Held: The acts complained of were so close to the activities which a solicitor would normally undertake, that … Continue reading Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others: HL 5 Dec 2002
The mortgage deed, which was a second mortgage, did not contain any express covenant to repay the principal sum, but only for monthly interest instalments with no element of capital repayment, since the principal was to be paid from an insurance policy. The property was re-possessed and sold, leaving nothing for the second mortgagee after … Continue reading Scottish Equitable Plc v Thompson and Another: CA 6 Feb 2003
The claimant alleged that the defendant, her stepfather, had sexually and otherwise assaulted her when she was a child. He had pleaded guilty to one charge in 1978, and now said that the claim was out of time. The claimant sought the extension of time for the claim on a just and equitable basis under … Continue reading RAR v GGC: QBD 10 Aug 2012
On 19 September 1830 an article was published in the Weekly Dispatch. The limitation period for libel was six years. The article defamed the Duke of Brunswick. Seventeen years after its publication an agent of the Duke purchased a back number containing the article from the Weekly Dispatch’s office. Another copy was obtained from the … Continue reading Duke of Brunswick v Harmer: QBD 2 Nov 1849
The claimants had commenced proceedings claiming damages for the mis-selling and/or misrepresentations made in relation to 27 swaps transactions entered into with the defendant bank. Hamblen J  EWHC 4621 (Comm) Bailii Limitation Act 1980 14A England and Wales Banking, Limitation Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551049
Movement retsriction was not Liberty Deprivation The claimants had been present during a demonstration policed by the respondent. They appealed against dismissal of their claims for false imprisonment having been prevented from leaving Oxford Circus for over seven hours. The claimants appealed against rejection of their claims on human rights law. Held: The appeal failed. … Continue reading Austin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: HL 28 Jan 2009
LRA Easements of right of way and right to park; Doctrine of Lost Modern Grant, Prescription Act 1832 ss. 2, 4; requirement for a suit or action; deviation of a right of way; section 15(1) of the Limitation Act 1980; permissive use;  EWLandRA 2012 – 0600 Bailii Prescription Act 1832 2 4, Limitation Act … Continue reading Russo and Others v Clarke and Another (Easements and Profits A Prendre : Easements of Parking): LRA 3 Feb 2014
The employer appealed against a decision by the tribunal that it had jurisdiction to hear the complaints of sex discrimination. The tribunal had extended the time for the claim on the just and equitable basis. Held: The EAT set out five criteria for answering whether to extend time: ‘(a) the length of and reasons for … Continue reading British Coal Corporation v Keeble and others: EAT 26 Mar 1997
The Claimant alleged against Harrods Limited the tort of conversion in accordance with s.2(2) of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. The claim relates to certain personal items (principally jewellery) which she inherited and which for many years remained in a safe deposit box on the Defendant’s premises. Held: On the facts, Eady J … Continue reading Schwarzschild v Harrods Ltd: QBD 19 Mar 2008
UTLC COMPENSATION – LIMITATION – whether acquiring authority estopped from relying on limitation defence by continuation of negotiations and advance payment made after expiry of limitation period – section 9, Limitation Act 1980 – notice of reference dismissed  UKUT 43 (LC) Bailii Limitation Act 1980 9 England and Wales Land, Limitation Updated: 27 December … Continue reading Khan v Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive (T/A Nexus): UTLC 27 Jan 2015
The bank had obtained a judgement against the defendant, and took a charging order. Nothing happened for more than twelve years, and the defendant now argued that the order and debt was discharged. Held: The enforcement of the charging order by normal means is not barred by section 20(1), and unlike the position under a … Continue reading Yorkshire Bank Finance Ltd v Mulhall and Another: CA 24 Oct 2008
Appeal from a decision granting the claimant’s application made pursuant to section 32A of the Limitation Act 1980 to disapply the limitation period in his proceedings for libel and dismissing the defendants’ application to strike out the claimant’s claim under CPR rule 3.4(2). Held: The defendant’s appeal succeeded. The judge had incorrectly assessed the reasons … Continue reading Reed Elsevier Uk Ltd (T/A Lexisnexis) and Another v Bewry: CA 30 Oct 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, … Continue reading Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd v Fielding and Another: ChD 5 Sep 2014
(High Court of Australia) The court considered a possible extension of the law of negligence. Brennan J said: ‘the law should develop novel categories of negligence incrementally and by analogy with established categories. ‘Dean J said: ‘The requirement of proximity is directed to the relationship between the parties in so far as it is relevant … Continue reading Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman: 4 Jul 1985
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
The court was asked what damages are recoverable in a case where (i) but for the negligence of a professional adviser his client would not have embarked on some course of action, but (ii) part or all of the loss which he suffered by doing so arose from risks which it was no part of … Continue reading BPE Solicitors and Another v Hughes-Holland (In Substitution for Gabriel): SC 22 Mar 2017
The court was asked as to the circumstances in which the court could allow an amendment of pleadings so as to allow an additional claim where the action would otherwise be outside the limitation period. Dyson L MR, Tomlinson, Briggs LJJ  EWCA Civ 996,  WLR(D) 335 Bailii, WLRD Limitation Act 1980 35 England … Continue reading Mercer Ltd and Another v Ballinger and Another: CA 17 Jul 2014
The defendant council had carried out research into a water supply in India in the 1980s. The claimant drank the water, and claimed damages for having consumed arsenic in it. Held: There is a close link between the tests in law for proximity and foreseeability. The report was a short term pilot report, and could … Continue reading Binod Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council: CA 20 Feb 2004
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 of breach of trust had improperly removed a limitation defence. Held: The appeal was allowed. The … Continue reading Mortgage Express v Abensons Solicitors (A Firm): ChD 20 Apr 2012
May LJ said: ‘Knowledge’ is an ordinary English word with a clear meaning to which one must give full effect; ‘reasonable belief’ or ‘suspicion’ is not enough. The relevant question merits repetition – ‘when did the appellant first know that his dermatitis was capable of being attributed to his conditions at work?.’ May LJ Unreported, … Continue reading Davis v Ministry of Defence: CA 26 Jul 1985
The defendant had been tried for murder. The plaintiff now sought civil damages. The defendant replied that the case was brought out of time, and now appealed against the court’s extension of the time limit on the basis that the plaintiff had not known of the possibility of civil action. Held: It was no reproach … Continue reading Halford v Brooks: CA 1991
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 using the land for their own purposes. The evidence was that the … Continue reading Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran: CA 13 Feb 1989
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 restating a few basic principles relating to … Continue reading Powell v McFarlane: ChD 1977
Disapplication of Without Prejudice Rules The House was asked whether a letter sent during without prejudice negotiations which acknowledged a debt was admissible to restart the limitation period. An advice centre, acting for the borrower had written, in answer to a claim by the lender for the sum still due after the sale of the … Continue reading Bradford and Bingley Plc v Rashid: HL 12 Jul 2006
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 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 October 1991. In December 1990 the court answered an application for the sale … Continue reading Gotham v Doodes: CA 25 Jul 2006
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 overstayed the expiration of a grazing tenancy, and been asked to leave but had not been dispossessed. … Continue reading J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others v Graham and Another: HL 4 Jul 2002
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 registered proprietor of land appealed a finding that the defendant had established adverse possession of their land. The claimant had occupied it as part of his farm. Originally there had been a grazing tenancy. The tenancy was terminated, and the land sold, but he did not vacate the land. The new owner granted a … Continue reading Topplan Estates Ltd v David Townley: CA 27 Oct 2004
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
The claimants sought to establish title to land by adverse possession. The land was former Crown land. They had occupied the land since 1985. The defendants acquired the land from the Crown in 2000. Held: Part II of the 1980 Act need to be read as a whole. The Crown had up to 30 years … Continue reading Hill and Another v Transport for London: ChD 16 May 2005
The applicant, then Astrid Proll, fled bail in Germany when awaiting trial on terrorist charges, entered England and under a false name, and married Mr Puttick. She resisted extradition saying that under the 1948 Act she was now a British National. She appealed against a decision that she could not rely upon her fraudulent behaviour. … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Puttick: CA 1981
A promissory note executed on 30 June 1988, payable on demand. The promissory note was executed as a deed and therefore was a speciality falling under section 8 of the Limitation Act 1980, with a limitation period of 12 years. No demand was made for payment under the note within the period of 12 years. … Continue reading Allendale Ltd v Moualem: CA 6 Jul 2004
The claimant challenged the Order as regards the prescription of the morning-after pill, asserting that the pill would cause miscarriages, and that therefore the use would be an offence under the 1861 Act. Held: ‘SPUC’s case is that any interference with a fertilised egg, if it leads to the loss of the egg, involves the … Continue reading Regina (Smeaton) v Secretary of State for Health and Others: Admn 18 Apr 2002
The plaintiff’s wife had been killed by a negligently piloted RAF aeroplane. It was argued that, although this was a war injury, the language of section 3(1) did not exclude a claim based on trespass to the person. Held: Lord Greene MR said: ‘It seems to me that in this context the phrase ‘breach of … Continue reading Billings v Reed: CA 1945
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 which would take effect on his leaving the business. Through careless drafting the covenant was … Continue reading DW Moore and Co Ltd v Ferrier: CA 1988
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 the car repossessed and sold in his absence. Much later, the company sued for … Continue reading BMW Financial Service (GB) Ltd v Hart: CA 10 Oct 2012
The court was asked under what circumstances it should exercise its discretion to extend the limitation period under section 33. Held: Lady Justice Smith said: ‘It appears to me that there is now a long line of authority to support the proposition that, in a case where the defendant has had early notice of the … Continue reading Cain v Francis: CA 18 Dec 2008
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
Each of six claimants sought to pursue claims for damages for sexual assaults which would otherwise be time barred under the 1980 Act after six years. They sought to have the House depart from Stubbings and allow a discretion to the court to extend the limitation period. The House was also asked as to whether … Continue reading A v Hoare: HL 30 Jan 2008
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
The claimant challenged fines imposed on him after three illegal immigrants were found to have hidden in his lorry in the immigration control zone at Dunkirk. The 1999 At was to have been amended by the 2002 Act, and the implementation was by the 2002 Order. That Order was now said to be ineffective. Held: … Continue reading Bogdanic v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: QBD 29 Aug 2014
Appeals were made after an order declaring an account a between former partners in a wholesale fruit and vegetable business. The dispute related to the applicability of limitation to undrawn profit shares, and the doctrine of Laches. Held: The judge had been entitled to find on the evidence that undrawn profits had been capitalised. There … Continue reading Hopper and Another v Hopper: CA 12 Dec 2008
The applicant challenged the decision of the court that the sperm donor who had fertilised her eggs to create embryos stored by the respondent IVF clinic, could withdraw his consent to their continued storage or use. Held: The judge worked within a strict statutory framework. His task was to calculate the application of that law, … Continue reading Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd and others: CA 25 Jun 2004