Click the case name for better results:

Granville Technology Group Ltd and Others v Infineon Technologies Ag and Another: ComC 25 Feb 2020

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

Gresport Finance Ltd v Battaglia: CA 23 Mar 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

Collins v Brebner: CA 19 Jun 1997

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

Various Claimants v MGN Ltd: ChD 27 May 2022

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

Williams v Fanshaw Porter and Hazelhurst: CA 18 Feb 2004

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

Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue, HM Attorney General: ChD 18 Jul 2003

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

Ezekiel v Lehrer: CA 30 Jan 2002

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

Test Claimants In The Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Inland Revenue: SC 23 May 2012

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

D B Ramsden and Co Ltd v Nurdin and Peacock Plc and Another: ChD 14 Sep 1998

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

Abela and Others v Baadarani and Another: ChD 28 Jan 2011

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

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

Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc v Inland Revenue and Another: HL 25 Oct 2006

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

Goldtrail Travel Ltd v Grumbridge: ChD 22 Jul 2020

Application by defendant for strike out of claim as out of time. . .

Sheldon and Others v R H Outhwaite (Underwriting Agencies) Ltd and Others: CA 1 Jul 1994

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

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, 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

James Brocklesby v Armitage and Guest (a Firm): CA 9 Jul 1999

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

Deerness v John R Keeble and Son (Brantham) Ltd: HL 1983

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

Arcadia Group Brands Ltd and Others v Visa Inc and Others: CA 5 Aug 2015

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

Cave v Robinson Jarvis and Rolf (a Firm): HL 25 Apr 2002

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

Boyse (International) Ltd v Natwest Markets Plc and Another: ChD 25 May 2021

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 . .