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 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
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
What makes a claim a ‘new claim’ as defined in section 35(2) of the Limitation Act 1980 is not the newness of the case according to the type or quantum of the remedy claimed, but the newness of the cause of action that it involves. A cause of action is a set of facts that … Continue reading Aldi Stores Ltd v Holmes Buildings Plc: CA 1 Dec 2003
A new claim was not deemed to have been made until the pleading was actually amended for limitation purposes, and should not be allowed after the limitation period had expired. The date of the application for leave to amend was not at issue. The court will normally require the claimant to bring fresh proceedings, in … Continue reading Welsh Development Agency v Redpath Dorman Long Ltd: CA 4 Apr 1994
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 patent application had been presented to the European Patent Office and granted only after 13 years. The claimant now appealed refusal to allow amendment of its claim to allow a claim in its sole name. The defendant argued that it was out of time. Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘ the long-standing rule of practice … Continue reading Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and Another v Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd: ChD 16 Feb 2006
The claimant appealed the strike-out of his claim for professional negligence against the respondent solicitors. He claimed that the solicitors had acted in breach of their duty, and he then called a company meeting. Only he attended. He mistakenly believed that he had the power to assign to himself from the company the right of … Continue reading Smith v Henniker-Major and Co: CA 22 Jul 2002
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 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
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
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
The parties disputed ownership of land, one claiming adverse possession. In the course of negotations, the possessor made a without prejudice offer to purchase the paper owner’s title. The paper owner claimed that this was an acknowledgement under section 29. Held: The letter should not be admitted. Any admission in the first letter could not … Continue reading Ofulue and Another v Bossert: HL 11 Mar 2009
The claimant as PR of her husband’s estate sought damages for misrepresentation and, against his former solicitiors for negligence in regards to the boundaries of a property he had bought from the first defendants using the second defendants as his solicitors. The first defendant said the claim was time barred. The six year period had … Continue reading Green v Eadie and Others: ChD 18 Nov 2011
The claimant beneficiary in the estate sought damages against solicitors who had acted for the claimant’s brother, the administrator, saying they had allowed him to take control of the assets in the estate. The will provided that property was to be transferred only if the claimant’s brother paid all the Inheritance Tax. It was transferred … Continue reading Roberts v Gill and Co Solicitors and Others: SC 19 May 2010
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
Nine police officers claimed damages for alleged harassment under the 1997 Act by a senior officer in having bullied them and ordered them to carry out unlawful procedures. Amendments were sought which were alleged to be out of time and to have arisen from different facts. Held: Amendments were allowed where they arose from the … Continue reading Dowson and Others v Northumbria Police: QBD 30 Apr 2009
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) A fire occurred at premises in which the stock was insured under two policies. Both insurers denied the claims alleging arson, and that it was out of time. The claimant said that the . .
