Click the case name for better results:

Five Oaks Land Ltd v London Borough of Redbridge (Compensation – Limitation): UTLC 2 Dec 2021

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

Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis v Meekey: Admn 12 Jan 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

OT Computers Ltd v Infineon Technologies Ag and Another: CA 14 Apr 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

IGE USA Investments Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs: 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

Crowter and Others, Regina (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Health And Social Care: Admn 23 Sep 2021

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

Dixon Coles and Gill (A Former Firm) v Baines, Bishop of Leeds and Another: CA 20 Jul 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

Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd: HL 14 Feb 1980

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

Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent): HL 1966

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

Bowden v Poor Sisters of Nazareth and others and similar: HL 21 May 2008

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

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

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

Forbes v Wandsworth Health Authority: CA 21 Mar 1996

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

Butters and Another v Hayes: CA 25 Feb 2021

‘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 . .

Acts

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

Statek Corporation v Alford and Another: ChD 17 Jan 2008

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

Cattley and Another v Pollard and Another: ChD 7 Dec 2006

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

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 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

Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria: SC 19 Feb 2014

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

Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd v Fielding and Another: CA 17 Jun 2016

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

Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd and Others: SC 20 Mar 2019

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

Dubai Aluminium Company Limited v Salaam and Others: HL 5 Dec 2002

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

Scottish Equitable Plc v Thompson and Another: CA 6 Feb 2003

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

Duke of Brunswick v Harmer: QBD 2 Nov 1849

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

Austin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: HL 28 Jan 2009

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

Russo and Others v Clarke and Another (Easements and Profits A Prendre : Easements of Parking): LRA 3 Feb 2014

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; [2014] 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

British Coal Corporation v Keeble and others: EAT 26 Mar 1997

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

Schwarzschild v Harrods Ltd: QBD 19 Mar 2008

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

Khan v Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive (T/A Nexus): UTLC 27 Jan 2015

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 [2015] 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

Yorkshire Bank Finance Ltd v Mulhall and Another: CA 24 Oct 2008

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

Reed Elsevier Uk Ltd (T/A Lexisnexis) and Another v Bewry: CA 30 Oct 2014

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

Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd v Fielding and Another: ChD 5 Sep 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

Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman: 4 Jul 1985

(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

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

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

BPE Solicitors and Another v Hughes-Holland (In Substitution for Gabriel): SC 22 Mar 2017

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

Mercer Ltd and Another v Ballinger and Another: CA 17 Jul 2014

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 [2014] EWCA Civ 996, [2014] WLR(D) 335 Bailii, WLRD Limitation Act 1980 35 England … Continue reading Mercer Ltd and Another v Ballinger and Another: CA 17 Jul 2014

Binod Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council: CA 20 Feb 2004

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

Mortgage Express v Abensons Solicitors (A Firm): ChD 20 Apr 2012

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

Davis v Ministry of Defence: CA 26 Jul 1985

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

Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran: CA 13 Feb 1989

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

Powell v McFarlane: ChD 1977

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

Bradford and Bingley Plc v Rashid: HL 12 Jul 2006

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

Ofulue and Another v Bossert: HL 11 Mar 2009

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

J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Others v Graham and Another: HL 4 Jul 2002

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

Hamilton and others v Allied Domecq Plc (Scotland): HL 11 Jul 2007

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

Chambers v London Borough of Havering: CA 20 Dec 2011

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

Topplan Estates Ltd v David Townley: CA 27 Oct 2004

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

Collins v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and Others: CA 23 May 2014

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

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Puttick: CA 1981

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

Regina (Smeaton) v Secretary of State for Health and Others: Admn 18 Apr 2002

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

DW Moore and Co Ltd v Ferrier: CA 1988

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

BMW Financial Service (GB) Ltd v Hart: CA 10 Oct 2012

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

Young v Downey: QBD 18 Dec 2019

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

Bowling and Co Solicitors v Edehomo: ChD 2 Mar 2011

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

Bogdanic v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: QBD 29 Aug 2014

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

Hopper and Another v Hopper: CA 12 Dec 2008

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

Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd and others: CA 25 Jun 2004

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