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 it is important to recognise that there are different ways in which such a breach may cause damage. Thus, an isolated event amounting to such a breach may cause a chain of damage development commencing when the effects of the breach first affect the claimant, and those [effects] may continue for a long period of time. If that period commences prior to the cut-off date for the purposes of the period of limitation, the claim will prima facie be time-barred notwithstanding that the effects of the breach may continue beyond that date. The position is similar to a claim in tort for negligence. By contrast, there may be a continuing or repeated breach of statutory duty, over an extended period, such as an unlawful emission of toxic fumes which continues to affect and injure those exposed to it over the whole period of that breach. In such a case, if the limitation cut-off date occurs during the period, the claimant’s cause of action for the damage suffered after the date in question will not be time-barred.’
Colman J concluded that the case before him fell into the latter category.
Colman J
[2003] EWHC 687 (Comm), [2000] EuLR 232, [2003] 2 Lloyds Law Reports 225
Bailii
Limitation Act 1980
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Yeheskel Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd ComC 11-Nov-1999
A claimant in an action for damages for breaches of Articles 85, 86 of Rome Treaty, who had previously complained of such breaches to the European Commission but failed to complain of matters subsequently, attempted to raise in an action is . .
Cited by:
Cited – Phonographic Performance Limited v Department of Trade and Industry HM Attorney General ChD 23-Jul-2004
The claimant represented the interests of copyright holders, and complained that the defendant had failed to implement the Directive properly, leaving them unable properly to collect royalties in the music rental market. The respondent argued that . .
See Also – Arkin v Borchard Lines Limited Andzim Israel Navigation Company Ltd and others v Managers and Processors of Claims QBD 27-Nov-2003
. .
Cited – Chester City Council and Another v Arriva Plc and others ChD 15-Jun-2007
The claimant council alleged that the defendant had acted to abuse its dominant market position in the provision of bus services in the city.
Held: It was for the claimant to show that the defendant had a dominant position. It had not done so, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
European, Commercial, Transport, Limitation
Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.180760