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
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a friend, … Continue reading Donoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson: HL 26 May 1932
Appeal against refusal to excuse claim in slander being out of time. The claim was in respect of the claimant being ‘disfellowed’ by the Society. Held: The claim form was in fact issued one day within the period. Appeal allowed. Judges: Sir Geoffrey Charles Vos Ch, Gloster, Sharp LJJ Citations: [2017] EWCA Civ 136 Links: … Continue reading Otuo v Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Britain: CA 9 Mar 2017
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
Limitation periods are more easily set aside in defamation cases. The court has a wide discretion. Citations: Times 15-Nov-1995 Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 32A Jurisdiction: England and Wales Defamation Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.84515
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
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
Flaux J summarised the principles to be applied when considering what discovery of a fraud was, and what was ‘reasonable diligence’ so as to set the limitation clock started. He observed that: ‘If section 32(1) involved a statutory assumption that the claimant was on notice of something meriting investigation, it would make it very difficult … Continue reading Granville Technology Group Ltd and Others v Infineon Technologies Ag and Another: ComC 25 Feb 2020
Appeal from a decision to grant the defendant bank summary judgment in respect of certain of the claimants’ claims. The result of the judgment is that the claimants can pursue a claim in deceit and contend that such claim is neither time-barred nor precluded by anti-set off provisions in their contract with the bank. No … Continue reading Woodeson and Another v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd: CA 17 May 2018
Henderson LJ referred to the judgment of Neuberger LJ in Sephton in which he discussed the need for there to be an assumption that the claimant desires to know that there has been a fraud. Henderson LJ observed: ‘Another way to make the same point . . might be that the ‘assumption’ referred to by … Continue reading Gresport Finance Ltd v Battaglia: CA 23 Mar 2018
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
Citations: [2020] EWHC 672 (QB) Links: Bailii Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 32, Consumer Credit Act 1974 140A-D Jurisdiction: England and Wales Consumer, Limitation Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.649907
The claimant appealed against an order that his claim in defamation had failed for limitation, the judge having held that time ran from publication even though the claimant did not know the identity of the author. Held: The appeal was dismissed. The court had to take two separate decisions. First had the cause of action … Continue reading Edwards v Golding and others: CA 3 Apr 2007
Judges: The Hon Mr Justice Fancourt Citations: [2022] EWHC 1222 (Ch) Links: Bailii Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 32(1)(b) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Limitation Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.678298
The claimant alleged that her solicitors had concealed from her the fact that they had entered a consent order which dismissed her claim for medical negligence. Held: The solicitor had failed to inform the client that her original claim against a doctor had been struck out although he was aware at the time that it … Continue reading Williams v Fanshaw Porter and Hazelhurst: CA 18 Feb 2004
The taxpayer sought to bring an action for restitution by the revenue of sums paid under a mistake of law. Under the Metallgesellschaft decision, rights of election for recovery of overpaid tax applied only between UK resident companies. Held: The limitation period began only upon the decision which stated the law, and not upon the … Continue reading Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue, HM Attorney General: ChD 18 Jul 2003
The applicant claimed that his solicitor had been negligent with regard to the execution of a mortgage. The solicitor said his claim was time barred. The claimant said the solicitor had hidden the true situation from him, and the solicitor replied that he had merely refused to answer a question put to him, but had … Continue reading Ezekiel v Lehrer: CA 30 Jan 2002
A failure by an adviser to make his position clear when he thought he had been negligent, could constitute a ‘deliberate’ act within section 32 even if the defendant’s actions were not motivated by any intention to deceive the claimant: ‘it is not necessary for the purpose of extending the limitation period pursuant to Section … Continue reading James Brocklesby v Armitage and Guest (a Firm): CA 9 Jul 1999
The European Court had found the UK to have unlawfully treated differently payment of franked dividends between subsidiaries of UK companies according to whether all the UK subsidiaries were themselves UK based, thus prejudicing European subsidiaries, breach of EU Treaty guarantees of freedom of establishment and of movement of capital. The court was now asked … Continue reading Test Claimants In The Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Inland Revenue: SC 23 May 2012
The court was asked as to the meaning of the word ‘deliberate’ as it appeared in section 32(2) of the 1980 Act. Judges: Potter, Sedley, Jonathan Parker LJ Citations: [2001] EWCA Civ 245, [2001] PNLR 573, [2002] 1 WLR 581, [2001] Lloyd’s Rep PN 290, 78 Con LR 1, [2001] PNLR 23, (2001) 17 Const … Continue reading Cave v Robinson Jarvis and Rolf: CA 20 Feb 2001
Husband and wife were involved in a custody dispute. The father made serious but false allegations to the press. She now claimed in defamation, but he relied upon limitation. She said the facts had only become known to her much later. Held: ‘Facts relevant to cause’ referred to those facts necessary to be pleaded but … Continue reading C v Mirror Group Newspapers and Others: CA 21 Jun 1996
The tenant overpaid rent, including a payment in May 1997 on advice that the payment would be recoverable following litigation establishing that it was an overpayment. The court later held that the payments in question were indeed overpayments. The plaintiff then sought repayment of the sums overpaid (including the payment made in May 1997), on … Continue reading D B Ramsden and Co Ltd v Nurdin and Peacock Plc and Another: ChD 14 Sep 1998
The claimant solicitor alleged that the repeated and failed prosecutions of him and the obtaining of search warrants had been an improper attempt to stop him practising. Phillips J [2016] EWHC 2884 (QB) Bailii Limitation Act 1980 32 England and Wales Administrative, Limitation, Torts – Other Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.571115
The claimant had begin proceedings against the defendant legal publishers, saying that their summary of a cash had brought was defamatory. He now sought leave to extend the limitation period for his claim, and the defendants argued that, given the very limited publication, the case was not worth pursuing. Held: There had been considerable delay, … Continue reading Bewry v Reed Elseveir (UK) Ltd and Another: QBD 10 Oct 2013
The claimant sought damages alleging inter alia fraud by the defendant in a company sale between the parties. The defendant now sought to have set aside the service on him in Lebanon, saying that The English court was not the forum coveniens. He also said that the claim was out of time. Held: The application … Continue reading Abela and Others v Baadarani and Another: ChD 28 Jan 2011
Appeal by the claimants from the order of Simon J by which he ordered on summary judgment applications by the defendants that (1) the claimants are not entitled to rely on section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980; and the claims are time barred pursuant to sections 2 and 9 of the 1980 Act insofar … Continue reading Arcadia Group Brands Ltd and Others v Visa Inc and Others: CA 5 Aug 2015
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
‘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
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
The tax payer had overpaid Advance Corporation Tax under an error of law. It sought repayment. The revenue contended that the claim was time barred. Held: The claim was in restitution, and the limitation period began to run from the date when the claimants discovered their mistake. The appellants had submitted that section 33 of … Continue reading Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc v Inland Revenue and Another: HL 25 Oct 2006
The claimant sought to have struck out as abuse of process parts of the defence, saying that the factual issues raised had already been resolved in arbitration proceedings, but as against a different oarty. The defendant replied that the arbitration had been confidential to the parties to it. Held: The application was refused. Independently of … Continue reading OMV Petrom Sa v Glencore International Ag: ComC 7 Feb 2014
An action for negligence against a solicitor was defended by saying that the claim was out of time. The claimant responded that the solicitor had not told him of the circumstances which would lead to the claim, and that deliberate concealment should extend the limitation period. Held: Brocklesby was wrongly decided. Section 32 should deprive … Continue reading Cave v Robinson Jarvis and Rolf (a Firm): HL 25 Apr 2002
The defendant appealed a finding of deceit. Having issued its certificate as to the quality of a cargo of gasoline, it then failed to disclose to the party who had paid it to produce the certificate, information it had which cast doubt on the accuracy of te certificate. Held: Dishonesty was the essence of the … Continue reading AIC Ltd v ITS Testing Services (UK) Ltd (‘the Kriti Palm’): CA 28 Nov 2006
Application by defendant for strike out of claim as out of time. . .
Deliberate concealment could prevent the limitation period from running. . .
Houses were built on defective foundations. The purchasers sued the builders and later the architects who designed them. The defendants argued that the houses were doomed from the start so that the cause of action accrued, not when the physical damage to the houses occurred, but when the plaintiffs became the owners of the houses … Continue reading Ketteman v Hansel Properties Ltd: HL 1987
In 1987, and before the claim was issued in 1992 the claimant had issued a claim which had never been served. She sought to extend the limitation period arguing that she had not acquired the requisite knowledge until later, Held: She had had the requisite knowledge in 1985. Waite LJ observed that her issue of … Continue reading Whitfield v North Durham Health Authority: CA 1995
Members of Lloyd’s who faced re-insurance underwriting liabilities alleged negligence on the part of the active underwriter, their members’ agents and their syndicates’ managing agents. Limitation defences were raised. Held: Mere knowledge of the damage of which complaint is later made, is not sufficient to start time running. Hoffmann LJ emphasised the statutory words ‘attributable … Continue reading Hallam-Eames and Others v Merrett Syndicates Ltd and Others: CA 25 Jan 1995
A claimant was not fixed with knowledge of the source of his injury by being referred for medical opinion. He could not be expected to understand the source of this injury without expert assistance, and time did not run until such assistance was obtained. Judges: Henry LJ Citations: Times 28-May-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1486, [1999] … Continue reading Ali v Courtaulds Textiles Ltd: CA 26 May 1999
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
Citations: [1998] EWCA Civ 1328 Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 5 6 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Limitation, Contract Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.144807
The plaintiff suffered injury walking a gangway onto a moored ship. Her solicitors failed to identify the owner of the ship, misspelling the name and failing to search in the General Register of Shipping and Seamen. The eventual claim was made outside the basic limitation period. Was the plaintiff fixed with knowledge under section 14(3)(b)? … Continue reading Henderson v Temple Pier Company Limited: CA 23 Apr 1998
The normal limitation period applies to directors’ disqualification applications. Citations: Gazette 26-Feb-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 931, Times 17-Feb-1997 Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 39 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Halstead v Council of City of Manchester CA 23-Oct-1997 Land had been compulsorily purchased, and the compensation agreed, but after long delays in payment, … Continue reading Moore and Another v Gadd and Another: CA 5 Feb 1997
Citations: [1996] EWCA Civ 1132, [1997] 2 All ER 395 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – Walkley v Precision Forgings Ltd HL 1979 The plaintiff tried to bring a second action in respect of an industrial injury claim outside the limitation period so as to overcome the likelihood that his first action, although timeous, … Continue reading Forward v Hendricks: CA 6 Dec 1996
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
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 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 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
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
Whether the cause of action for the outstanding sums accrued when D first defaulted in his payments or only when D failed to comply with the default notice stipulated by CCA s.87(1) and required by clause 8f of the Agreement. D appealed from a finding against him. Held: The appeal failed. ‘The effect of the … Continue reading Doyle v PRA Group (UK) Ltd: CA 23 Jan 2019
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 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 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
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
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
PENSIONS – PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE – LIMITATION – Liability of scheme administrator – Delay in closing Barber Window – Defendant’s application to strike out and for summary judgment – Claimants’ application for permission to amend particulars of claim – Limitation Act 1980, ss 14A, 14B, 32 Judges: His Honour Judge Hodge QC Sitting as a Judge … Continue reading James Cropper Plc and Another v Aviva Life and Pensions UK Ltd: ChD 8 Jul 2022
The occupier had been granted a temporary licence by the authority under the homelessness provisions whilst it made its assessment. The assessment concluded that she had become homeless intentionally, and therefore terminated the licence and set out to evict her. She claimed that the authority had to get a court authority before so evicting her. … Continue reading Desnousse v London Borough of Newham and others: CA 17 May 2006
The claimant had sought to bring proceedings against the respondent, but as a mental patient subject to the 1983 Act, had been obliged by the section first to obtain consent. The parties disputed whether the failure was a procedural or substantial failing and whether it made the proceedings a nullity. Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. … Continue reading Seal v Chief Constable of South Wales Police: HL 4 Jul 2007
The claimant’s husband died when his car skidded on hoar frost. She claimed the respondent was liable under the Act and at common law for failing to keep it safe. Held: The respondent had not assumed a general responsibility to all road users to ensure that all or any trunk roads would be salted in … Continue reading Jane Marianne Sandhar, John Stuart Murray v Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions: CA 5 Nov 2004
The court considered a claim for the adverse possesion of land. Held: Dyson LJ said: ‘to establish a claim of adverse possession for the requisite period of 12 years it is necessary to establish: (1) actual possession; (2) an intention to possess. That has two elements. First a subjective element requiring the person, the trespasser, … Continue reading Inglewood Investments Company Ltd v Baker: CA 8 Nov 2002
The defendant appealed against a order finding it was liable for the fees claimed by its former solicitors. They had said that the claim for costs was barred by limitation. Held: The defendant’s appeal failed; a solicitor’s claim for his costs, billed but not yet fixed by assessment or agreement, fell within the phrase ‘debt … Continue reading Phillips and Co (A Firm) v Bath Housing Co-Operative Ltd: CA 11 Dec 2012
The claimant sought to begin proceedings to renew his business tenancy, but the proceedings were issued in the wrong name. He sought to amend the proceedings to substitute the correct defendant, but that application was out of time. Held: Proceedings under the 1954 Act were not within the proceedings listed by CPR 19.5 since the … Continue reading Parsons and Another v George and Another: CA 13 Jul 2004
The claimants had issued defamation proceedings. The defendant said they were out of time, having begun the action more than one year after the alleged publication, but accepted that they had not been prejudiced in their defence. The court refused to extend the period. The lack of prejudice to the defendant was not in itself … Continue reading Steedman, Clohosy, Smith, Kiernan, Newman, Creevy, Anderson v The British Broadcasting Corporation: CA 23 Oct 2001
The test of ‘When a plaintiff became aware of the cause of an injury’ is a subjective test of what passed through plaintiff’s mind. ‘(1) the knowledge required to satisfy s14(1)(b) is a broad knowledge of the essence of the causally relevant act or omission to which the injury is attributable; (2) ‘attributable’ in this … Continue reading Spargo v North Essex District Health Authority: CA 13 Mar 1997
The claimant sought to recover overpayments said to have been made to the defendant barrister in the early 1990s. Interim payments on account had been made, but these were not followed by final accounts. The defendant, now retired, said that the claims were defeated by limitation and laches and were an abuse of process because … Continue reading Legal Services Commission v Henthorn: QBD 4 Feb 2011
The plaintiffs, with the leave of the court, had obtained garnishee and charging orders nisi against the debtor 11 and a half years after they had obtained a consent judgment. Held: An application by the judgment debtor to set aside the orders on the ground that they were statute barred under section 24(1) should be … Continue reading Lowsley and Another v Forbes (Trading As I E Design Services): HL 29 Jul 1998
The plaintiff tried to bring a second action in respect of an industrial injury claim outside the limitation period so as to overcome the likelihood that his first action, although timeous, would be dismissed for want of prosecution. Held: He could not do so. He was not prejudiced by the primary limitation period since he … Continue reading Walkley v Precision Forgings Ltd: HL 1979
Supreme Court of Canada – Limitation of actions – Torts – Assault and battery – Incest – Woman bringing action against father for damages for incest – Whether or not action limited by Limitations Act – Application of the reasonable discoverability principle – Whether or not incest a separate and distinct tort – Limitations Act, … Continue reading KM v HM: 29 Oct 1992
The plaintiff suffered very serious injuries as a passenger in a car, and a writ was issued within the three-year period against the driver and the owner of the car whose insurers made a substantial interim payment. The writ was not served, nor renewed at the end of 12 months, and the limitation period expired … Continue reading Deerness v John R Keeble and Son (Brantham) Ltd: HL 1983
The employers sued the builders and architects alleging defects in the air conditioning system. Later, cracking and displacement of the walls was discovered, caused allegedly by not having sulphate resisting cement, and defects in the wall ties. Allegations were made against the contractors and the architects and also structural engineers. The question then arose whether … Continue reading Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association Ltd v Trollope and Colls Ltd: CA 1986
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its property rights. It was also argued that it was not possible to make a declaration … Continue reading Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2): HL 10 Jul 2003
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares. Held: The duties of an auditor are founded in contract and the extent of the duties … Continue reading Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others: HL 8 Feb 1990
The defendant solicitors had acted for the lenders and borrower in a mortgage transaction. The claimant sought repayment of the entire loan, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, in having preferred the interests of one client over those of another. The betrayal of trust inherent in a breach of duty must be a deliberate act. They … Continue reading Birmingham Midshires Building Society v Infields (A Firm): TCC 20 May 1999
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US authorities. The claimant had asserted that no more … Continue reading Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel: CA 3 Feb 2005
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Case management PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Amendment PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Time limits Neither the procedural common law doctrine of ‘relation back’ (now defunct – see Beecham Group plc v Norton Healthcare Ltd [1997] FSR 81, Liff v Peasley [1980] 1 WLR 781 and Ketteman v Hansel Properties Ltd [1987] … Continue reading Galilee v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis: EAT 22 Nov 2017
The Police appealed from a finding that the claim brought by a former constable was not out of time. He had worked under cover making drugs purchases, and had become addicted to heroin. Held: The appeal failed. Judges: Sir Terence Etherton MR Citations: [2017] EWCA Civ 1992, [2018] 4 WLR 32, [2017] WLR(D) 818 Links: … Continue reading Greater Manchester Police v Carroll: CA 1 Dec 2017
The claimant 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
Banker’s Liability for Negligent Reference The appellants were advertising agents. They were liable themselves for advertising space taken for a client, and had sought a financial reference from the defendant bankers to the client. The reference was negligent, but the bankers denied any assumption of a duty of care to a third party when purely … Continue reading Hedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd: HL 28 May 1963
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
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 Court was asked whether the justices had had power under section 4(2) to impose reporting restrictions on committal proceedings pending the trial to which they related.. Held: They had. A premature publication in contravention of a postponement order under section 4(2) of which the publisher was aware is a contempt of court notwithstanding section … Continue reading Regina v Horsham Justices ex parte Farquharson: CA 1982
The Claimant sought damages for breach of the Rome Treaty Articles 82 and 81. His shipping company had faced organised anti-competitive attempts by the respondents to put him out of business. Held: A cause of action for breach of a statutory duty first arises when the breach causes damage to the claimant: ‘In this connection … Continue reading Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd and others: ComC 10 Apr 2003
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
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 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 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
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
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 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
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
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
In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the company’s names. The judge had made such an order, finding evidence that the companies had … Continue reading Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others: SC 12 Jun 2013
The claimant received injuries when arrested. He was later convicted of resisting arrest. The defendant relied on section 329 of the 2003 Act. The claimant said that the force used against him was grossly disproportionate. The commissioner appealed against a refusal to strike out the claim, saying that consent to the action should have been … Continue reading Adorian v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: CA 23 Jan 2009
Each claimant sought damages for a criminal assault for which the defendant was said to be responsible. Each claim was to be out of the six year limitation period. In the first claim, the proposed defendant had since won a substantial sum from the National Lottery. They complained that the Limitation Act gave the court … Continue reading A v Hoare; H v Suffolk County Council, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening; X and Y v London Borough of Wandsworth: CA 12 Apr 2006
The appellant, former chair of a road activist group, challenged certain roads orders saying that the respondent had not carried out the required environmental assessment. His claim was that the road had been adopted without the consultation required by the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (‘the SEA Directive’), and that that the scope of the public … Continue reading Walton v The Scottish Ministers: SC 17 Oct 2012
