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 section and was not time barred after 6 years. Citations: LTL … Continue reading Ridgeway Motors (Isleworth) Ltd v Altis: ChD 21 May 2004
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 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 associate his own hearing problems with exposure to noise in earlier years. … Continue reading Johnson v Ministry of Defence and Another: CA 21 Nov 2012
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 1980 and Land Registration Act 2002 Citations: [2011] EWLandRA 2010 – 1166 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Registered Land, Limitation Updated: 06 … Continue reading Michael Abbs, Rachel Marie Hoey v Edward James Eldridge, Joanna Claire Eldridge (Adverse Possession): LRA 21 Sep 2011
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 … Continue reading Lowsley and Another v Forbes: CA 21 Mar 1996
Damages were sought following sex abuse whilst in care. Judges: Lord Justice Chadwick Lord Justice Latham Sir Swinton Thomas Citations: [2004] EWCA Civ 1746 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Appeal from – A v Hoare HL 30-Jan-2008 Each of six claimants sought to pursue claims for damages for sexual assaults which would … Continue reading C v Middlesbrough Council: CA 21 Dec 2004
‘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 limitation period, it will not later become time-barred because … Continue reading Butters and Another v Hayes: CA 25 Feb 2021
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 prejudice’ correspondence – whether privileged – alleged perjury Citations: [2008] EWLandRA 2008 – 0321 Links: … Continue reading Michael Walton v Kerguelen Investments Limited (Practice and Procedure): LRA 22 Dec 2008
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 … Continue reading Ezekiel v Lehrer: ChD 21 Mar 2001
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 International Law with the corollary that this country would, … Continue reading Spinneys (1948) Ltd v Royal Insurance Co Ltd: 1980
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 … Continue reading Jacqueline Adam v Rasal Ali: CA 21 Feb 2006
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
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
A workman contracted pneomoconiosis and knew all the relevant facts but was advised by the local secretary of his trade union that he could not sue. His later claim was met by a defence of limtation. Held: The action was time barred. Citations: 1980 SC (HL) 46 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – … Continue reading McIntyre v Armitage Shanks Ltd: HL 1980
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 court will not add a person as a defendant to an existing action if the claim was already statute-barred and he wished to rely on that defence, and if the court allows such addition ex parte it will not, on objection allow the addition to stand. Where a defendant is added under Ord.15 r.6 … Continue reading Liff v Peasley: CA 1980
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 [2021] 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
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. . .
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
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 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 … Continue reading First Subsea Ltd v Balltec Ltd and Others: CA 30 Mar 2017
Blackburne J assumed that a plea of accessory liability was covered by s.21(1)(a). Judges: Blackburne J Citations: [2002] EWHC 855 (Ch) Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 21(1)(a) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria QBD 8-Apr-2011 The claimant had been defrauded by a customer of the defendant bank. He … Continue reading Schulman v Hewson and others: ChD 2002
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 under a trust and had been brought in respect of a fraudulent breach … Continue reading Central Bank of Nigeria v Williams: CA 3 Apr 2012
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 … Continue reading Berezovsky v Abramovich: ComC 22 May 2008
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 the claim was out of time unless the claimant could bring the … Continue reading Halton International Inc Another v Guernroy Ltd: CA 27 Jun 2006
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 considered whether the claim was out of time. That issue depended upon whether a … Continue reading Halton International Inc (Holding) and Another v Guernroy Ltd: ChD 9 Sep 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 … Continue reading Green and others v Gaul and Another; In re Loftus deceased: ChD 18 Mar 2005
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
Judges: Harman J Citations: [1988] 1 Ch 414 Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 21(3) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Henchley and Others v Thompson ChD 16-Feb-2017 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 … Continue reading Attorney General v Cocke: ChD 1988
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 section applied and there is no limitation period. Judges: Mr Justice Rimer Citations: Times 10-Dec-2001 Statutes: … Continue reading Deg-Deutsch Investitions Und Entwicklungsgesellschaft Mbh v Koshy (No 3) Gwembe Valley Development Co Ltd v Same (No 3): ChD 26 Oct 2001
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 account in common form to be produced by … Continue reading Henchley and Others v Thompson: ChD 16 Feb 2017
Lord Kerr, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs [2018] UKSC 14, [2018] 2 BCLC 311, [2018] 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
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 substitution of a successor party to a claim does not constitute a new claim for limitation purposes. Millett LJ considered the objects of the 1980 Act: ‘The 1980 Act was enacted in order to implement the recommendations of the Twenty-First Report of the Law Reform Committee (Final Report on Limitation of Actions) (Cmnd 6923) … Continue reading Yorkshire Regional Health Authority v Fairclough Building Ltd and Another: CA 16 Nov 1995
Defendant’s strike out application – limitation Judges: Mann J Citations: [2020] EWHC 1593 (Ch) Links: Bailii Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 32 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: See Also – Various Claimants v News Group Newspapers Ltd (1436) ChD 4-Jun-2020 . . Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. Limitation, Torts – Other … Continue reading Various Claimants v News Group Newspapers Ltd: ChD 19 Jun 2020
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 delay in the application for the grant did not apply where time had not … Continue reading Earnshaw and Others v Hartley: CA 31 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 driver defendant. Held: The plaintiff was allowed to seek the exercise … Continue reading Shapland v Palmer: CA 23 Mar 1999
A beneficiary under an intestacy, who tried to position himself as owner of assets in the estate, became a constructive trustee of those assets, with or without letters of administration, and accordingly the claim for the return of the land was not time-barred. ‘Parliament, wittingly or unwittingly has drawn a distinction between personal representatives and … Continue reading James v Williams: CA 8 Mar 1999
Citations: [1997] PNLQ 252 Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 32 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – 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, … Continue reading Markes v Coodes: 1997
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 injuries some of which the plaintiff knows to be attributable to the act or omission … Continue reading Roberts vWinbow (3): CA 4 Dec 1998
The Society appealed dismissal for limitation of its claim against the defendant firm of accountants arising from alleged fraud in approval of a solicitor’s accounts. Held: The liability did not arise until the Society decided to make compensation to those who had been affected by the solicitor’s default. The claims in negligence were not time … Continue reading The Law Society v Sephton and Co and others: CA 13 Dec 2004
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
A limited company is not a trustee of its funds, but their beneficial owner. However, the fiduciary character of the duties of its directors mean that they are treated as if they were trustees of those funds of the company which are in their hands or under their control, and if they misapply them they … Continue reading Re Lands Allotment Company: CA 1894
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
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 ‘partly subjective’and ‘section 14(2) was designed principally to provide for cases of late diagnosis … Continue reading KR and others v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd and Another: CA 10 Jun 2003
The defendant solicitor appealed refusal of an order to strike out the claim. The claimant alleged breach of trust. The claimant asserted a fraudulent witholding of information to suggest that any breach of trust had happened. The defendant said that the claimant had sufficient knowledge independent of any concealment to begin the limitation period. Held: … Continue reading Collins v Brebner: CA 19 Jun 1997
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 adult, and made a claim. Held: The defendant’s appeal succeeded. The court had … Continue reading O’Driscoll v Dudley Health Authority: CA 30 Apr 1998
The claimant sought to enforce an arbitration award made in 1983. Time might otherwise have expired, but the claimants relied on a fax which they said was an acknowledgement of the debt, and also upon a finding in a Romanian court which created an issue estoppel. Held: A typed signature on a fax was capable … Continue reading Good Challenger Navegante S A v Metalexportimport SA: CA 24 Nov 2003
Where a first writ issued within the primary limitation period is itself ineffective (although not a nullity) through having been issued variously without consent against a company in liquidation. Held: The Walkley principle does not apply to defeat in limine a second action, notwithstanding that in each of those cases the defect was recognised to … Continue reading Mcevoy v AA Welding and Fabrication Ltd: CA 15 Dec 1997
The case raised the question of law involving the application of the rule against perpetuities to what, on the claimant’s case, is a right of pre-emption created before the coming into force in 2010 of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009.’ Held: The right purportedly exercised by the letter had become void for remoteness, and … Continue reading Taylor v Couch: ChD 1 Mar 2012
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. . . … Continue reading Sheldon and Others v R H Outhwaite (Underwriting Agencies) Ltd and Others: CA 1 Jul 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 … Continue reading Dobbie v Medway Health Authority: CA 11 May 1994
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 … Continue reading Broadley and Guy v Chapman and Co: CA 26 Jul 1993
The applicants owned a substantial property near an airbase. They complained that changes in the patterns of flying by the respondents were a nuisance and sought damages. Walcot Hall was subjected to very high noise levels from military aircraft. The particular noise is loud and characterised by a very rapid onset with a corresponding startle … Continue reading Dennis and Dennis v Ministry of Defence: QBD 16 Apr 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 widow sought to pursue an action, but it was claimed that this was out of time. … Continue reading Barry Young (Deceased) v Western Power Distribution (South West) Plc: CA 18 Jul 2003
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 … Continue reading In re Pantone 485 Ltd: ChD 29 Nov 2001
Appeal against finding that a local authority was not responsible for the sexual abuse of the appellant whilst with foster carers as a child. Held: As to whether the duty as non-delegable, such a duty must relate to a function which the local authority had assumed a duty to perform. Fostering was not a function … Continue reading NA v Nottinghamshire County Council: CA 12 Nov 2015
The claimant said that as a child the defendant had failed in its duty to protect her from her abusive mother and later from foster parents. Held: Males J, dealt with the issues of liability and limitation, leaving issues concerning causation and quantum of damages to be dealt with later if necessary. As to limitation, … Continue reading NA v Nottinghamshire County Council: QBD 2 Dec 2014
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 it might have arisen from the negligence now found. Held: The court … Continue reading Smith v Leicestershire Health Authority: CA 29 Jan 1998
Judges: Underhill VP, Irwin , Nicola Davies LJJ Citations: [2019] EWCA Civ 1707, [2019] WLR(D) 568 Links: Bailii, WLRD Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 9 39 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Employment, Limitation Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.642660
The court considered an appeal against an order allowing an amendment outside the limitation period which would Judges: Lloyd, Wilson, Gross LJJ Citations: [2010] EWCA Civ 1153, [2011] Bus LR 504, [2011] BPIR 158, [2011] 1 WLR 1364 Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 19.5, Limitation Act 1980 35 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited … Continue reading Irwin and Another v Lynch and Another: CA 6 Oct 2010
The court was asked whether, when a claim was issued towards the very end of a limitation period, but was then not served, and the claim was struck out, CPR Part 7.5(1) gave a further four months in which it could be resurrected at the discretion of a judge under section 33 of the 1980 … Continue reading Aktas v Adepta: CA 22 Oct 2010
The claimants wished to claim damages arising from the participation by the defendants in an unlawful cartel. The Court of Appeal had said that the claim was out of time, and that the claimants would have to seek an extension of time to bring their claim. Held: The Tribunal acted on the basis that it … Continue reading BCL Old Co Ltd and Others Basf Se (Formerly Basf Ag) and Others: CAT 19 Nov 2009
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 claimant said the decision to deny her claim had interfered with her … Continue reading A v Hoare: QBD 14 Oct 2005
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 … Continue reading O’Donovan v Manchester (Ringway) Airport Plc: UTLC 26 Aug 2009
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and indemnity risks. The grounding occurred during a combination of severe weather events. Each of the two elements … Continue reading Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another: SC 10 May 2017
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 claimant had been seriously injured in an accident during a swimming lesson. She sought to claim against the local authority, and now appealed against a finding that it was not responsible, having contracted out the provision of swimming lessons. She said that the duty of care was non-delegable. Held: Her appeal succeeded. For a … Continue reading Woodland v Essex County Council: SC 23 Oct 2013
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 claimant had been abused as a child by foster parents with whom she had been placed by the respondent authority. The court was now asked, the Council not having been negligent, were they in any event liable having a non-delegable duty of care with accompanying vicarious liability? Held: The appeal succeeded (Lord Hughes dissenting). … Continue reading Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council: SC 18 Oct 2017
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 … Continue reading Re a Debtor: ChD 1997
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 … Continue reading Hampton v Minns: ChD 17 May 2001
The carrier had loaded the cargo on the ship’s deck, despite a clause requiring it to be stowed in a hold. The charterparty sought to use the breach to remove the carrier’s limit of liability. The older form of Hague rules applied. Held: It was not yet decided that the wharehouse and deviation case law … Continue reading Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd and Another v Klipriver Shipping Ltd and Another: CA 3 Apr 2003
The court considered whether a solicitor acting for a potential plaintiff was considered to be an expert for the purposes of the section. Held: Purchas LJ said: ‘Of course as advice from a solicitor as to the legal consequences of the act or omission is not relevant his contribution can only consist of factual information. … Continue reading Nash v Eli Lilly and Co: CA 1993
The wrong of the servant or agent for which the master or principal is liable is one committed in the case of a servant in the course of his employment, and in the case of an agent in the course of his authority. It is fundamental to the whole approach to vicarious liability that an … Continue reading Generale Bank Nederland Nv (Formerly Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland Nv) v Export Credits Guarantee Department: HL 19 Feb 1999
Representative claims were made against the respondents, hospitals, pathologists etc with regard to the removal of organs from deceased children without the informed consent of the parents. They claimed under the tort of wrongful interference. Held: Organ removal when a post mortem had been ordered by the coroner was not tortious. In English law there … Continue reading AB and others v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust: QBD 26 Mar 2004
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
The claimants sought damages after the birth of their child with a severe hereditary disease which they said the defendant hospital had failed to diagnose after testing for that disease. The hospital sought a contribution from the company CSL who had carried out the test. The third party said that the claim was out of … Continue reading Farraj and Another v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust and Another: QBD 26 May 2006
The case was heard against the background of an armed conflict between Japan and China. The charterparty contract included a clause providing for cancellation ‘if war breaks out involving Japan’. Held: The court rejected an argument that the meaning of ‘war’, when found in a charterparty, was to depend on either the question whether war … Continue reading Kawasaki Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha of Kobe v Bantham Steamship Company Limited: CA 1939
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 … Continue reading Ofulue and Another v Bossert: CA 29 Jan 2008
