London Borough of Bromley v Morritt: CA 21 Jun 1999

The defendants appealed against orders relating to the construction of a sewage pipe through their garden under powers given under the Act. The defendant had later blocked the pipe and the authority sought to recover the costs of repair. He claimed that the pipe was a drain, not a sewer, and had therefore been laid unlawfully.
Held: Whether it was a sewer or a drain depended upon the intention at the time it was constructed, and not its current use. A sewer would serve more than one property. That had been the intention, and the judgment was correct. In a second appeal, the defendant had constructed a wall enclosing land, and claimed ownership by limitation. The land enclosed included land over which there was a public right of way, and accordingly no acquisition by adverse possession was possible.
Mummery LJ said: ‘In my judgment, this appeal does fail. On the judge’s finding of fact the land enclosed by the fence and the wall was part of the public highway. As a matter of law, an adverse possession or squatter’s title cannot be acquired to land over which a public right of way exists. The only question is the exercise of discretion to make a mandatory order.’

Judges:

Swinton Thomas, Mummery LJJ

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1631, [1999] 78 P and CR D37

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1936 15(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBeckenham Urban District Council v Wood 1896
The court considered at what point a drain became a sewer: ‘The general rule, as I understand, is, that where a drain receives the sewage of two or more houses it is a sewer; where it receives the sewage of one house only it may still remain a . .
Application for leaveLondon Borough of Bromley v l Morritt CA 20-Jul-1998
The defendant sought an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal. He had been ordered to remove a wall which the claimant said enclosed what was part of the highway, and which the defendant said he had acquired by adverse possession.

Cited by:

CitedSmith, Regina (on the Application of) v The Land Registry (Peterborough Office) Admn 13-Feb-2009
The applicant sought judicial review of the cancellation of his application for first registration of land by adverse possession. The application had been rejected because a public right of way existed through it, and the claimant had not shown the . .
CitedSmith, Regina (on The Application of) v Land Registry (Peterborough Office) and Another CA 10-Mar-2010
The appellant had lived in a caravan on the verge of a byway and had been here for more than twelve years. He appealed against rejection of his request for possessory title. He said that there was no support in law for the maxim that adverse . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation, Utilities

Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.146546

Holt v Holley and Steer Solicitors (A Firm): CA 7 Jul 2020

The claimant wished to claim professional negligence against the defendants her former solicitors, saying that they had failed to have items of jewelry professionally valued on her divorce. She now appealed from an order striking out the claim as time barred.

Judges:

Lord Justice McCombe

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 851

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Professional Negligence, Limitation

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.652311

Siddiqui v University of Oxford: QBD 5 Dec 2016

The University applied to have struck out the claim by the claimant for damages alleging negligence in its teaching leading to a lower class degree than he said he should have been awarded.
Held: Strike out on the basis that the claim was bound to fail was refused. Nor was the claim bound to fail under limitation difficulties. Application refused

Judges:

Kerr J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 3150 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 14(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedE D and F Man Liquid Products Ltd v Patel and Another CA 4-Apr-2003
The rules contained two occasions on which a court would consider dismissal of a claim as having ‘no real prospect’ of success.
Held: The only significant difference between CPR 24.2 and 13.3(1), is that under the first the overall burden of . .
CitedClark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside CA 14-Apr-2000
A student had been failed after being falsely accused of cheating, but the academic review board, on remarking the paper marked it as zero.
Held: Where a University did not have the supervisory jurisdiction of a visitor, a breach of contract . .
CitedPhelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council; Anderton v Clwyd County Council; Gower v Bromley London Borough Council; Jarvis v Hampshire County Council HL 28-Jul-2000
The plaintiffs each complained of negligent decisions in his or her education made by the defendant local authorities. In three of them the Court of Appeal had struck out the plaintiff’s claim and in only one had it been allowed to proceed.
CitedBolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee QBD 1957
Professional to use Skilled Persons Ordinary Care
Negligence was alleged against a doctor.
Held: McNair J directed the jury: ‘Where some special skill is exercised, the test for negligence is not the test of the man on the Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test . .
CitedAbramova v Oxford Institute of Legal Practice QBD 18-Mar-2011
The claimant sought damages saying that the defendant had failed to provide her with the Legal Practice Course promised. The complaints included, in particular, an attack on the practice of having students mark their own mock examination papers.
CitedWinstanley v Sleeman and Another QBD 13-Dec-2013
The claimant’s PhD thesis had initially failed, but on an internal appeal that decision was reversed, the appellate body accepting the contention that the supervision or other arrangements during his period of study had been unsatisfactory. The . .
CitedSpargo v North Essex District Health Authority CA 13-Mar-1997
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 . .
CitedMinistry of Defence v AB and Others SC 14-Mar-2012
The respondent Ministry had, in 1958, conducted experimental atmospheric explosions of atomic weapons. The claimants had been obliged as servicemen to observe the explosions, and appealed against dismissal of their claims for radiation sickness . .
CitedCave 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 . .
See AlsoSiddiqui v University of Oxford QBD 2016
Kerr J refused an application for him to recuse himself based inter alia on the fact that counsel for the Defendant before him was a member of his former chambers: ‘It is true that I was a member of the same chambers of Mr Milford until June 2015. . .

Cited by:

See AlsoSiddiqui v The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of The University of Oxford QBD 7-Feb-2018
. .
See AlsoSiddiqui v University of Oxford QBD 16-Mar-2018
Post judgment issues . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Education, Litigation Practice, Limitation

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.572350

Sir Lawrence Vaughan Palk, Baronet v Shinner: 25 May 1852

Under stat. 2 and 3 W. 4, c. 71, sa, 7, 8, the time during which the servient tenement has been under lease for a term exceeding three years is to be excluded from the computation of a forty years’ enjoyment, but not from the computation of an enjoyment for twenty years.

Citations:

[1852] EngR 612, (1852) 18 QB 568, (1852) 118 ER 215

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Limitation

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.295735

AB and Others v Nugent Care Society: CA 29 Jul 2009

‘These appeals raise questions as to the correct approach to the application of section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 in the light of the decision of the House of Lords in A v Hoare [2008] UKHL 6, [2008] 1 AC 844. Each appeal arises out of allegations of historic sexual abuse at a children’s home or homes. ‘

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 827, [2009] LS Law Medical 524, [2009] Fam Law 1045, [2010] PIQR P3, [2010] 1 FLR 707, [2010] 1 WLR 516

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMcDonnell and Another v Walker CA 24-Nov-2009
The defendant appealed against the disapplication of section 11 of the 1980 Act under section 33.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The defendant had not contributed significantly to the delay: ‘the defendant received claims quite different in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Personal Injury

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.365610

Evans v CIG Mon Cymru Ltd: CA 18 Jan 2008

‘Shortly after the expiry of the limitation period, a claimant serves on a defendant, by post, a claim form and particulars of claim together with a schedule of losses and a medical report. The letter serving the documents, the particulars of claim and the medical report make it clear that the claim is intended to be for damages for an accident at work. By a clerical error, the claim form refers not to an accident at work but to ‘abuse’ at work.
The defendants’ solicitors spot the discrepancy. They argue that the intended action for damages for the accident at work cannot now proceed. Are they right in law? That in short is in the question before us. ‘

Judges:

Lord Justice Toulson

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 390, [2008] 1 WLR 2675, [2008] PIQR P17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Limitation

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.267070

Ketteman v Hansel Properties Ltd: HL 1987

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 with defective foundations, at which time they suffered economic loss because the houses were less valuable than they would have been if the foundations had been sound.
Held: As to the defendant’s argument, a building should not be considered to be ‘doomed from the start’, for purposes of statutes of limitation merely because it had a latent defect which must inevitably result in some damage at some later stage.
Lord Keith: ‘The proposition that a cause of action in tort accrued out of negligence resulting in pure economic loss was thought to be vouched by reference to Junior Books Ltd. v Veitchi Co. Ltd. 1983 1 AC 520. That case was cited in Pirelli in support of the argument that, since in that case there was economic loss when the chimney was built, the cause of action arose then. The argument was clearly rejected in the speech of Lord Fraser concurred in by all the others of their Lordships who participated in the decision. At p.16, he expressed the opinion that a latent defect in the building does not give rise to a cause of action until damage occurs. In the present case there can be no doubt that the defects in the houses were latent. No-one knew of their existence until damage occurred . . this branch of the argument for the architects is in my opinion inconsistent with the decision in Pirelli and must be rejected.’ and ‘Whatever Lord Fraser may have had in mind in uttering the dicta in question, it cannot, in my opinion have been a building with a latent defect which must inevitably result in damage at some stage. That is precisely the kind of building that Pirelli was concerned with, and in relation to which it was held that the cause of action accrued when the damage occurred. This case is indistinguishable from Pirelli and must be decided similarly.’ Lord Brandon: ‘The argument of counsel, as I understand it, proceeded as follows. Where a house was built on defective foundations, a buyer of it might suffer two kinds of damage. The first kind of damage was physical in the form of consequential structural failure or damage. The second kind of damage was economic loss, in the form of diminution in market value. In the case of the first kind of damage, the buyer’s cause of action against any party for negligence in respect of the defective foundations accrued when the consequential structural failure or damage occurred. But in the case of the second kind of damage, the diminution in market value was present from the time of the original construction, and it was at that earlier time that the buyers cause of action in respect of such diminution accrued. The plaintiffs in the present case had sued for the second kind of damage, namely diminution of market value. The causes of action had therefore accrued at the date when the houses were built. In my opinion this contention cannot be supported. I do not know what special cases Lord Fraser had in mind when he referred in his speech in Pirelli to buildings ‘doomed from the start’. It may be that he was only keeping open the possibility of the existence of such special cases out of major caution. Be that as it may, however I am quite sure that he was not seeking to differentiate between causes of action in respect of making good defects or damage on the one hand and the causes of action in respect of diminution in market value on the other . . . In my view there is nothing in the facts of the present case which would take it out of the general principle laid down in Pirelli . . ‘
The House outlined the practice to be followed in deciding whether to allow a statement of claim to be amended: ‘Whether an amendment should be granted is a matter for the discretion of the trial judge and he should be guided in the exercise of the discretion by his assessment of where justice lays. Many and diverse factors will bear upon the exercise of this discretion. I do not think it possible to enumerate them all or wise to attempt to do so. But justice cannot always be measured in terms of money and in my view a judge is entitled to weigh in the balance the strain the litigation imposes on litigants, particularly if they are personal litigants rather than business corporations, the anxieties occasioned by facing new issues, the raising of false hopes, and the legitimate expectation that the trial will determine the issues one way or the other. Furthermore to allow an amendment before a trial begins is quite different from allowing it at the end of the trial to give an apparently unsuccessful defendant an opportunity to renew the fight on an entirely different defence.’ The doctrine of relator back was disapporved. As to the addition of a defendant: (Lord Keith) ‘A cause of action is necessarily a cause of action against a particular defendant and the bringing of the action which is referred to must be the bringing of the action against that defendant in respect of that cause of action.’
Lord Griffiths: ‘Whether an amendment should be ganted is a matter for the discretion of the trial judge and he should be guided in the exercise of the discretion by his assessment of where justice lays. Many and diverse factors will bear upon the exercise of this discretion. I do not think it possible to enumerate them all or wise to attempt to do so. But justice cannot always be measured in terms of money and in my view a judge is entitled to weigh in the balance the strain the litigation imposes on litigants, particularly if they are personal litigants rather than business corporations, the anxieties occasioned by facing new issues, the raising of false hopes, and the legitimate expectation that the trial will determine the issues one way or the other. Furthermore to allow an amendment before a trial begins is quite different from allowing it at the end of the trial to give an apparently unsuccessful defendant an opportunity to renew the fight on an entirely different defence.’

Judges:

Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Griffiths

Citations:

[1987] 2 WLR 312, [1987] AC 189

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedJunior Books v Veitchi Co Ltd HL 15-Jul-1982
The defendant was a specialist sub-contractor brought in to lay a floor. In laying the composition floor the defenders used too wet a mixture and applied too thin a top coat and failed to cure the material properly. As a result cracks began to . .
OverruledMitchell v Harris Engineering Co Ltd CA 1967
The plaintiff was seeking to claim against his employers for personal injuries. There was correspondence with them before action that did not lead to a settlement. When the writ was issued a junior clerk made a mistake and issued it in the very . .
ApprovedLiff v Peasley CA 1980
The court will not add a person as a defendant to an existing action if the claim was already statute-barred and he wished to rely on that defence, and if the court allows such addition ex parte it will not, on objection allow the addition to stand. . .

Cited by:

CitedMauthoor v THF Delap and Associates Limited CA 2-Oct-1995
The parties agreed for the transfer of shares. The payment cheque was not honoured. The appellant first claimed an absence of consideration, then sought to amend her defence to say that she had acted under economic duress. Threats had been made as . .
CitedE I Du Pont de Nemours and Co v S T Dupont (2) ChD 22-Nov-2002
The parties had appeared before a hearing officer at the Trade Marks registry. The opponent of the registration sought leave to argue an additional point which, though unpleaded, could have been argued without any significant adjournment. The . .
CitedBarings Plc (In Liquidation) and Another, Barings Futures (Singapore) Pte Ltd (In Liquidation) v Coopers and Lybrand (A Firm) and Others, Mattar and 36 Others ChD 17-Oct-2003
BFS was a company incorporated in Singapore which conducted its internal affairs in Singapore Dollars. It was by statute required to render its accounts in that currency. It paid its staff in Singapore Dollars. It sought damages in Singapore . .
CitedParsons and Another v George and Another CA 13-Jul-2004
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: . .
CitedParsons and Another v George and Another CA 13-Jul-2004
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: . .
CitedAbbott and Another v Will Gannon and Smith Ltd CA 2-Mar-2005
The claimant had employed the defendants to design refurbishment works for their hotel. The work was said to be negligent, and the claimant sought damages. The defendant argued as a preliminary point that the claim was time barred. The question was . .
CitedSmithkline Beecham Plc and others v Apotex Europe Ltd and others PatC 26-Jul-2005
Application was made to join in further parties to support a cross undertaking on being made subject to interim injunctions.
Held: On orders other than asset freezing orders it was not open to the court to impose cross-undertakings against . .
CitedLes Laboratoires Servier and Another v Apotex Inc and others ChD 9-Oct-2008
The claimant had alleged that the defendant was producing generic drugs which infringed its rights in a new drug. The patentee had given a cross-undertaking in damages, but the patent was later ruled invalid. The court had to assess the damages to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Limitation

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.182324

Various Claimants v News Group Newspapers Ltd (1436): ChD 4 Jun 2020

Judges:

Mann J

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1436 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoVarious Claimants v News Group Newspapers Ltd ChD 19-Jun-2020
Defendant’s strike out application – limitation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Torts – Other

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.651920

Whitfield v North Durham Health Authority: CA 1995

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 the claim in 1987 did not necessarily betoken that she had knowledge under section 14(1), saying also: ‘The court should look to the essence of the matter and enquire how far the plaintiff had knowledge in broad terms of the facts on which it is based’ and ‘In a discretionary jurisdiction where the court is required to have regard to ‘all the circumstances of the case’ it would clearly be inappropriate to look for hard and fast rules, but counsel were agreed in this court that the section must be read as incorporating one underlying principle. In the process of assessing equity and balancing prejudice which the section enjoins, a party’s action or inaction cannot be divorced from the acts or omissions of his legal representative. The principle in that respect is analogous to that applying in cases of striking out for want of prosecution.’

Judges:

Waite LJ

Citations:

[1995] 6 Med LR 32, [1995] PIQR 361

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 14(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedFarraj and Another v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust and Another QBD 26-May-2006
The claimants sought damages after the birth of their child with a severe hereditary disease which they said the defendant hospital had failed to diagnose after testing for that disease. The hospital sought a contribution from the company CSL who . .
DoubtedDas v Ganju CA 31-Mar-1999
Where a personal injury action had been delayed for five years by bad advice from solicitors and counsel, the court’s discretion should be exercised to allow the plaintiff to proceed with her claim, not herself being responsible for the delay.
CitedMinistry of Defence v AB and Others SC 14-Mar-2012
The respondent Ministry had, in 1958, conducted experimental atmospheric explosions of atomic weapons. The claimants had been obliged as servicemen to observe the explosions, and appealed against dismissal of their claims for radiation sickness . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Professional Negligence

Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.242344

Seymour v Williams: CA 1995

The plaintiff issued proceedings against her father and mother, alleging physical and sexual abuse against her father and want of parental care against her mother. The claim against the father was in trespass, but that against her mother was in negligence.
Held: The claim against the father was governed by the six years limitation period, and that against the mother by the three year limitation period. Both were out of time, but the Act gave discretion to extend the three year limited claim in negligence. The Court found this anomalous, and invited the Law Commission to consider the anomaly that different periods of limitation apply to a claim against a perpetrator of abuse and to a claim against someone for negligently failing to prevent that abuse with only the latter having a potential extension.

Judges:

Russell LJ, Millett LJ and Sir Ralph Gibson

Citations:

[1995] PIQR P470

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedA v Hoare QBD 14-Oct-2005
The defendant had been convicted and sentenced for the attempted rape of the claimant. He had subsequently won a substantial sum on the lottery, and she now sought damages. He replied that the action was statute barred being now 16 years old. The . .
CitedKR and others v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd and Another CA 12-Feb-2003
The respondent appealed decisions by the court to allow claims for personal injury out of time. The claims involved cases of sexual abuse inflicted by its employees going back over many years.
Held: The judge had misapplied the test laid down . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.235389

Re A Debtor: 1977

Corporate insolvency proceedings based on a statutory demand for monies due under a previous judgment are an ‘action on a judgment’ within s 24 rather than a method of enforcing or executing the judgment. They are barred by s 24 if brought more than six years after the judgment was obtained. S 24(1) of the 1980 Act bars after six years rights of action including proceedings in the form of bankruptcy proceedings, based on an earlier judgment.

Judges:

HHJ Paul Baker QC

Citations:

[1977] Ch 310

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 24(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedE D and F Man (Sugar) Ltd v Haryanto ChD 24-Nov-1995
Enforcement by judgment on co-ordinate jurisdiction judgment is discretionary: ‘ . . having regard to the decision in Re A Debtor [1977] Ch 310 that s 24(1) of the 1980 Act bars after six years rights of action including proceedings in the form of . .
CitedBennett v The Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland CA 23-Jul-2004
The bank had obtained judgment against the defendant, but had failed to act upon it, and the judgment became unenforceable. It then began later proceedings on the original debt (still within the applicable limitation period). The defendant said this . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.199356

Yorkshire Regional Health Authority v Fairclough Building Ltd and Another: CA 16 Nov 1995

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) (1977). The dichotomy between amendments to existing proceedings which involved the addition or substitution of new parties and those which did not is to be found in the committee’s recommendations. The committee recommended that no change was required in the rules which enabled a new cause of action to be added out of time (a reference to Ord 20, r 5); that a minor amendment be made to allow a change in capacity to be made out of time (which required an amendment to Ord 20, r 5(4)); and that the rulemaking powers of the Supreme Court and County Court committees should be enlarged so as to confer power to enable parties to be added out of time in five specific cases which the committee had identified (which led to the addition of paras (4) to (6) to Ord 15, r 6). The purpose of these recommendations was to allow a limited number of amendments to existing proceedings to be made after the expiry of the limitation period which could not have been made before. They were not intended to deprive the court of any existing power to allow amendments after the expiry of the limitation period, nor were they intended to cover amendments which, though made after the expiry of the limitation period, were not statute-barred. It would have been completely outside the committee’s terms of reference to make any recommendation of the latter kind.’

Judges:

Millett LJ

Citations:

Ind Summary 27-Nov-1995, Times 16-Nov-1995, [1996] 1 All ER 519, [1996] 1 WLR 210

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 35 (2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAdelson and Another v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 9-Jul-2007
The claimant sought to add the name of a further claimant. The defendant objected, saying that it was after the expiry of the limitation period.
Held: The claimant was seeking to use the rules for substitution of parties to add a party. In . .
CitedRoberts v Gill and Co Solicitors and Others SC 19-May-2010
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.90670

Hallam-Eames and Others v Merrett Syndicates Ltd and Others: CA 25 Jan 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 . . to the act or omission which is alleged to constitute negligence’ and explained: ‘In other words the act or omission of which the plaintiff must have knowledge must be that which is causally relevant for the purposes of an allegation of negligence . . It is this idea of causal relevance which various judges of this court have tried to express by saying the plaintiff must know ‘the essence of the act or omission to which the injury is attributable’ (Purchas LJ in Nash v Eli Lilly and Co [1993] 1WLR 782 at 799) or ‘the essential thrust of the case’ (Sir Thomas Bingham M.R. in Dobbie [1994] 1WLR 1238) or that ‘one should look at the way the plaintiff puts his case, distil what he is complaining about and ask whether he had in broad terms knowledge of the facts on which that complaint is based’ (Hoffmann LJ in Broadley [1993] 4 Med LR 328, 332)’.

Judges:

Hoffmann LJ

Citations:

Independent 25-Jan-1995, Times 25-Jan-1995, [2001] Lloyd’s Rep PN 178, [1995] 7 Med LR 122

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 14A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHaward and others v Fawcetts HL 1-Mar-2006
The claimant sought damages from his accountants, claiming negligence. The accountants pleaded limitation. They had advised him in connection with an investment in a company which investment went wrong.
Held: It was argued that the limitation . .
CitedSmith v Leicestershire Health Authority CA 29-Jan-1998
The plaintiff appealed a finding that she had sufficient knowledge of her possible claim for medical negligence against the defendants, and that she was out of time. She had known of her condition, but said she had no sufficient reason to see that . .
CitedPierce v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council QBD 13-Dec-2007
The claimant sought damages, saying that the local authority had failed to protect him when he was a child against abuse by his parents.
Held: The claimant had been known to the authority since he was a young child, and they owed him a duty of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Negligence

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.81173

First National Comercial Bank plc v Humberts: CA 27 Jan 1995

The plaintiff loaned money on the basis of a negligent survey by the defendant. The borrower subsequently defaulted, and the lender issued a writ. The defendant said that the claim was time barred.
Held: The court allowed the plaintiff’s appeal. A cause of action against surveyor arose only when the loss was sustained and crystalised, and it was not sustained on the survey.
Saville LJ said: ‘To my mind it would be wrong simply to take the debit side of the deal and to describe it as loss or damage flowing from the breach of duty without taking into account the credit side of the deal. The reason for this is that the inquiry is as to what loss or damage (if any) has been sustained through making the deal and when such loss or damage has been incurred. On this basis, on the evidence, I am quite unpersuaded that in July 1983 the plaintiffs were, to put it colloquially, out of pocket in respect of these expenses as a result of making the deal. They had no doubt incurred some expenditure but they had also received some benefit and there is nothing to show that the former exceeded the latter.’ and
‘At the hearing and in the judgment much reliance was placed on the cases where the claimant entered into a transaction which through a breach of duty owed to the claimant provided the claimant with less rights than should have been secured, or imposed liabilities or obligations on the claimant which should not have been imposed. Examples of these cases are: Forster v Outred and Co [1982] 1 WLR 86, Iron Trade Mutual Insurance Co Ltd v J K Buckenham Ltd [1990] 1 All ER 808, and Bell v Peter Browne and Co. [1990] 2 QB 495. In all those cases, however, the court was able to conclude that the transaction then and there caused the claimant loss, on the basis that if the injured party had been put in the position he would have occupied but for the breach of duty, the transaction in question would have provided greater rights, or imposed lesser liabilities or obligations than was the case; and that the difference between these two states of affairs could be quantified in money terms at the date of the transaction.’
‘At the hearing and in the judgment much reliance was placed on the cases where the claimant entered into a transaction which through a breach of duty owed to the claimant provided the claimant with less rights than should have been secured, or imposed liabilities or obligations on the claimant which should not have been imposed. Examples of these cases are: Forster v Outred and Co (a firm) [1982] 1 WLR 86, Iron Trade Mutual Insurance Co Ltd v J K Buckenham Ltd [1990] 1 All ER 808 and Bell v Peter Browne and Co (a firm) [1990] 2 QB 495. In all those cases, however, the court was able to conclude that the transaction then and there caused the claimant loss, on the basis that if the injured party had been put in the position he would have occupied but for the breach of duty, the transaction in question would have provided greater rights, or imposed lesser liabilities or obligations than was the case; and that the difference between these two states of affairs could be quantified in money terms at the date of the transaction. By contrast, in the present case, as in UBAF Ltd v European American Banking Corp [1984] QB 713 (and indeed Wardley Australia Ltd v State of Western Australia (1992) 109 ALR 247) it seems to me that whichever of the legally recognised kinds of loss is examined, it is impossible on the material available to conclude that the plaintiffs suffered such loss at any time more than six years from the date of their writ. For the reasons given, it has not been shown that they lost the amount of their advances at that time, or incurred expenses in respect of which they were out of pocket at that time; or at that time lost other transactions or the opportunity to make other transactions of a value greater than the deal they made.’ and ‘It is the law that a cause of action for the tort of negligence only arises when there has been a breach of duty resulting in actual (as opposed to potential or prospective) loss or damage of a kind recognised by the law.’

Judges:

Saville LJ

Citations:

Times 27-Jan-1995, Independent 14-Feb-1995, [1995] 2 All ER 673

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedForster v Outred and Co CA 1981
A mother signed a mortgage deed charging her property to H as security for a loan to her son. She claimed the solicitor had been negligent in his advice. The solicitor replied that the claim was out of time. The loss accrued not when demand for . .
CitedIron Trade Mutual Insurance Co Ltd v J K Buckenham Ltd 1990
The negligence of the plaintiffs’ insurance brokers led to the insurance policies being voidable for non-disclosure.
Held: The plaintiffs suffered immediate damage on entering into the policies because they did not get the protection they . .
CitedBell v Peter Browne and Co CA 1990
Mr Bell asked his solicitors to transfer the matrimonial home into his wife’s sole name. He was to receive a one-sixth interest of the gross proceeds on a sale. His interests were to be protected by a trust deed or mortgage. The solicitor drafted . .

Cited by:

HelpfulLaw Society v Sephton and Co (a Firm) and Others HL 10-May-2006
A firm of solicitors had a member involved in a substantial fraud. The defendant firm of accountants certified the firm’s accounts. There were later many calls upon the compensation fund operated by the claimants, who sought recovery in turn from . .
CitedPegasus Management Holdings Sca and Another v Ernst and Young (A Firm) and Another ChD 11-Nov-2008
The claimants alleged professional negligence in advice given by the defendant on a share purchase, saying that it should have been structured to reduce Capital Gains Tax. The defendants denied negligence and said the claim was statute barred.
CitedAxa Insurance Ltd v Akther and Darby Solicitors and Others CA 12-Nov-2009
The court considered the application of the limitation period to answering when damage occurred when it arises under an unsecured contingent liability. The claimant insurance company had provided after the event litigation insurance policies to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Negligence

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.80562

Weldon v Neal: CA 1887

An amendment to pleadings should not be allowed so as to allow a plaintiff to set up a cause of action which would otherwise be barred by the Statutes of Limitation.

Judges:

Lord Esher MR

Citations:

(1887) 19 QBD 394

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRoberts v Gill and Co Solicitors and Others SC 19-May-2010
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.415953

Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor: 2 Oct 1996

(High Court of Australia) McHugh J said that the public interest requires disputes to be settled as quickly as possible.

Citations:

[1996] HCA 25, (1996) 186 CLR 541, (1996) 139 ALR 1, (1996) 70 ALJR 866

Links:

Austlii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

CitedBowden 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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.267964

Long v Hepworth: 1968

Judges:

Cooke J

Citations:

[1968] 1 WLR 1299

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedA 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
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.240376

A’court v Cross: 1835

The Chief Justice commented on the 1623 Act, saying that he was ‘sorry to be obliged to admit that the courts of justice [had] been deservedly censured for their vacillating decisions’ and: ‘When by distinctions and refinements, which, Lord Mansfield says, the common sense of mankind cannot keep face with, any branch of the law is brought into a state of uncertainty, the evil is only to be remedied by going back to the statute . . ‘

Judges:

Best CJ

Citations:

[1835] 3 Bing 329

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1623

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHaward and others v Fawcetts HL 1-Mar-2006
The claimant sought damages from his accountants, claiming negligence. The accountants pleaded limitation. They had advised him in connection with an investment in a company which investment went wrong.
Held: It was argued that the limitation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.238776

Ridgeway Motors (Isleworth) Ltd v Altis: ChD 21 May 2004

The company sought to strike out a winding up petition presented by the respondents, saying a winding up petition was by way of an action, and was barred by statute after six years.
Held: A winding up petition was not an action within the section and was not time barred after 6 years.

Citations:

LTL 21 May 2004

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 38(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

DisapprovedRe a Debtor ChD 1997
The creditor appealed the decision to set aside a statutory demand as statute barred.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Bankruptcy proceedings based on a statutory demand for moneys due under a previous default judgment constituted ‘an action . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRidgeway Motors (Isleworth) Ltd v Alts Ltd CA 10-Feb-2005
The company appelaed a refusal of the judge to strike out a winding up petition. They said the petition was based upon a judgment which was now time barred. The petitioner replied that such a petition was not an action under the section.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Limitation

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.199817

Ali v Courtaulds Textiles Ltd: CA 26 May 1999

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] Lloyd’s Rep Med 301, (2000) 52 BMLR 129

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedNash v Eli Lilly and Co CA 1993
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 . .

Cited by:

CitedAdams v Bracknell Forest Borough Council HL 17-Jun-2004
A attended the defendant’s schools between 1977 and 1988. He had always experienced difficulties with reading and writing and as an adult found those difficulties to be an impediment in his employment. He believed them to be the cause of the . .
CitedHaward and others v Fawcetts HL 1-Mar-2006
The claimant sought damages from his accountants, claiming negligence. The accountants pleaded limitation. They had advised him in connection with an investment in a company which investment went wrong.
Held: It was argued that the limitation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.77732

Denty and Another v Hussein: ChD 26 May 1999

The parties owned adjoining premises. The plaintiffs sought relief, alledging that their rights of way had been infringed. The defendant had erected fences and gates across a service road.
Held: Where a party erected a fence obstructing a right of way, the court was able to differentiate between rights of way by foot and vehicular rights of way. The right of way by car had begun only within the prior 20 years. That particular right of way could be enforced by injunction, but not for the extent of use claimed.

Judges:

D L Mackie QC

Citations:

Gazette 16-Jun-1999, [1999] 96 (24) LSG 40

Statutes:

Prescription Act 1832

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Limitation

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.79903

Various Claimants v News Group Newspapers Ltd: ChD 19 Jun 2020

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 AlsoVarious Claimants v News Group Newspapers Ltd (1436) ChD 4-Jun-2020
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Torts – Other

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.651921

Buckley v Dalziel: QBD 3 May 2007

There was a heated dispute between neighbours, culminating in some generous or perhaps over-generous pruning by the claimant of the defendant’s trees and shrubs on the boundaries. The defendants reported the matter to the police. Both Mr and Mrs Dalziel made oral complaints to the officer who attended upon them. He later returned and Mr Dalziel made a written statement of his complaint. The claimant sought damages for defamation saying that the allegations were false. The claimant said that less protection should be given to complainants than to witnesses in general.
Held: Complaints to the police were protected by absolute privilege: ‘The public policy consideration applies with equal validity to those who are mere witnesses and to those who are initial complainants. It may be unjust that a malicious informant should be accorded comparable protection, but it is difficult to draw a principled distinction in this respect between malicious witnesses and malicious complainants.’

The test for whether a limitation period in a defamation case should be extended ‘is whether or not it is ‘equitable’ to allow the action to proceed.’ In this, the court decided against extending the time period.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1025 (QB), Times 07-Jun-2007, [2007] 1 WLR 2933, [2007] EMLR 624, [2007] EMLR 23

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defamation Act 1996, Limitation Act 1980 12A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedWatson v M’Ewan HL 1905
A claim was brought against a medical witness in respect of statements made in preparation of a witness statement and similar statements subsequently made in court. The appellant was a doctor of medicine who had been retained by the respondent in . .
CitedKay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others HL 8-Mar-2006
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the . .
CitedTaylor and Others v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others HL 29-Oct-1998
The defendant had requested the Isle of Man authorities to investigate the part if any taken by the plaintiff in a major fraud. No charges were brought against the plaintiff, but the documents showing suspicion came to be disclosed in the later . .
CitedLincoln v Daniels CA 1961
The defendant claimed absolute immunity in respect of communications sent by him to the Bar Council alleging professional misconduct by the plaintiff, a Queen’s Counsel.
Held: Initial communications sent to the secretary of the Bar Council . .
CitedWallersteiner v Moir CA 1974
The making of a declaration is a judicial act. A shareholder is entitled to bring a derivative action on behalf of the company when it is controlled by persons alleged to have injured the company who refuse to allow the company to sue. It is an . .
CitedDaniels v Griffiths CA 27-Nov-1997
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim in defamation against the defendant. He was a prisoner convicted of rape and subject to life imprisonment. He sought parole, and said that the defendant had slandered him before the Parole Board. . .
CitedMahon, Kent v Dr Rahn, Biedermann, Haab-Biedermann, Rahn, and Bodmer (a Partnership) (No 2) CA 8-Jun-2000
The defendant’s lawyers wrote to a financial services regulatory body investigating the possible fraudulent conduct of the plaintiff’s stockbroking firm. The letter was passed to the Serious Fraud Office who later brought criminal proceedings . .
CitedSteedman, Clohosy, Smith, Kiernan, Newman, Creevy, Anderson v The British Broadcasting Corporation CA 23-Oct-2001
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 . .

Cited by:

CitedWestcott v Westcott QBD 30-Oct-2007
The claimant said that his daughter in law had defamed him. She answered that the publication was protected by absolute privilege. She had complained to the police that he had hit her and her infant son.
Held: ‘the process of taking a witness . .
CitedAlexandrovic v Khan QBD 2008
The public policy priority is that those who have complaints should be free to make them to the police without fear that they will be challenged in later proceedings even if those who are malicious obtain the benefit of such protection, since the . .
CitedWestcott v Westcott CA 15-Jul-2008
The defendant was the claimant’s daughter in law. In the course of a bitter divorce she made allegations to the police which were investigated but did not lead to a prosecution. The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for defamation on the . .
CitedBewry v Reed Elseveir (UK) Ltd and Another QBD 10-Oct-2013
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Limitation

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.251796

Cotterill v Price: 1960

A statute-barred debt cannot be proved in bankruptcy.

Citations:

[1960] 1 WLR 1907

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHill (As Trustee In Bankruptcy of Nurkowski) v Spread Trustee Company Ltd and Another CA 12-May-2006
The defendants sought relief for transactions entered into at an undervalue. The bankrupt had entered into charges and an assignment of a loan account in their favour before his bankruptcy, and the trustee had obtained an order for them to be set . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Limitation

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.244182

Harvey v R G O’Dell Ltd: 1958

Citations:

[1958] 2 QB 78

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRonex Properties v. John Laing Construction Ltd CA 1983
The court considered a claim for contribution between tortfeasors. Donaldson LJ said: ‘The starting point of this submission is that a cause of action for contribution, under the Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act 1935, arises at the . .
CitedAer Lingus v Gildacroft Ltd and Another CA 17-Jan-2006
The claimant had been found liable to pay damages for personal injury, and now sought contribution from the defendants. The defendants said that they were out of time since the contribution action had been commenced more than 2 years after the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Damages

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.238755

Darlington Building Society and Abbey National Plc v O’Rourke James Scourfield and McCarthy: 1990

The plaintiffs sought to amend their claim to add an assertion that the defendant solicitors’ duty of confidentiality was lost by virtue of their clients’ fraudulent intent, and the possible knowledge of the defendant solicitors of that intent. It was argued that this was a new head of claim, and that it was statute barred.

Judges:

Sir Iain Glidewell

Citations:

[1990] 1 LLR 33

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAbbey National Plc v Clive Travers and Co (a Firm) CA 18-May-1999
The defendants appealed an order for discovery saying it would infringe their duty of confidence to their clients. The firm had acted for the buyer, seller and lender. A fraud on the lender was alleged. The solicitors sought to rely upon the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.185103

Johnson v Berentzen and Another: QBD 26 Apr 2021

Trial of a preliminary issue to determine whether the claimant’s claim in tort for damages for personal injury in a road traffic accident which occurred in Scotland but was issued in the jurisdiction of England and Wales was brought within the limitation period or is time barred. It raises issues of the proper role and operation of the applicable law in tort selected under the conflict of laws rules in Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (‘the Rome II Regulation’).

Judges:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Stacey

Citations:

[2021] EWHC 1042 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Limitation, Negligence, European

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.662425

Axa Insurance Ltd v Akther and Darby Solicitors and Others: CA 12 Nov 2009

The court considered the application of the limitation period to answering when damage occurred when it arises under an unsecured contingent liability. The claimant insurance company had provided after the event litigation insurance policies to the solicitors and their clients, relying on assessments of the cases made by the defendants. The court below had held that the taking out by the defendants of the policies was when the damage occurred.
Held: The claimant insurers’ appeal failed. The case law should not be read to put an unsecured creditor in a better position than a secured one. Analysis of Sephton led to the conclusion that: ‘there had to be measurable loss before time began to be run, that is to say, loss which is additional to the incurring of a purely contingent liability. In my judgment, for this purpose, rights of contribution or subrogation must be ignored because those rights arise by operation of law, unless excluded by agreement or statute. If they were taken into account, they would undermine the basic rule which is clearly established in Sephton that a pure contingent liability is not damage.’
A measurable loss arose on breaches of the vetting duties when the policies were issued, because the mis-assessment devalued the policies.

Judges:

Arden, Longmore, Lloyd LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1166, Times 15-Dec-2009, 127 Con LR 50, [2009] 2 CLC 793, [2010] PNLR 10, [2010] 1 WLR 1662

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromAxa Insurance Ltd v Akther and Darby Solicitors and Others ComC 27-Mar-2009
. .
CitedWardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia 1992
(High Court of Australia) A claim was based on a statutory trade indemnity scheme. The insurers claimed damages from Wardley, on the basis that its alleged deceit induced them to grant an indemnity, which was subsequently called on.
Held: . .
CitedDW 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 . .
CitedShore v Sedgwick Financial Services Ltd CA 23-Jul-2008
The claimant said that the defendant had given him negligent advice on pensions, failing to say that he should stay within his occupational scheme. The defendant pleaded limitation.
Held: The claimant suffered damage when he made the transfer . .
CitedWatkins and Another v Jones Maidment Wilson (A Firm) CA 4-Mar-2008
The claimants alleged professional negligence by the defendant solicitors in advising them to agree to a postponment of a completion. The defendants raised as a preliminary issue the question of limitation. The claimant said that the limitation . .
CitedLaw Society v Sephton and Co (a Firm) and Others HL 10-May-2006
A firm of solicitors had a member involved in a substantial fraud. The defendant firm of accountants certified the firm’s accounts. There were later many calls upon the compensation fund operated by the claimants, who sought recovery in turn from . .
CitedBell v Peter Browne and Co CA 1990
Mr Bell asked his solicitors to transfer the matrimonial home into his wife’s sole name. He was to receive a one-sixth interest of the gross proceeds on a sale. His interests were to be protected by a trust deed or mortgage. The solicitor drafted . .
CitedFirst National Comercial Bank plc v Humberts CA 27-Jan-1995
The plaintiff loaned money on the basis of a negligent survey by the defendant. The borrower subsequently defaulted, and the lender issued a writ. The defendant said that the claim was time barred.
Held: The court allowed the plaintiff’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Insurance, Professional Negligence

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.377883

Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd and Another v Bocardo Sa: CA 15 Jun 2009

The appellant had taken out a licence to drill for oil on its land. To maximise its return it drilled at a deep level out under the claimant’s land. It now appealed against a finding that this was a trespass, and that it should pay damages on a licence basis.
Held: The drilling was a trespass for which damages would be payable. However there was no damage to the claimant’s land, and the damages were reduced to a nominal andpound;1000.
Aikens LJ said that it was logical to examine the question of whether there was a trespass as at July 2000 when, having taken account of the fact that the limitation period under section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980 for a claim in trespass is six years, the cause of action arose.

Judges:

Jacob, Aikens, Sullivan LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 579, [2010] Ch 100, [2010] 1 All ER 26, [2009] 25 EG 136, [2009] 2 P and CR 23, [2009] 3 WLR 1010, [2009] NPC 78

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Petroleum (Production) Act 1934

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromBocardo Sa v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd and Another ChD 24-Jul-2008
The defendant had obtained a licence under the Act to extract oil from beneath its land. To do so, it had to drill at a deep level under the claimant’s land. It did so without the claimant’s permission. The claimant sought damages in trespass.

Cited by:

Appeal fromStar Energy Weald Basin Ltd and Another v Bocardo Sa SC 28-Jul-2010
The defendant had obtained a licence to extract oil from its land. In order to do so it had to drill out and deep under the Bocardo’s land. No damage at all was caused to B’s land at or near the surface. B claimed in trespass for damages. It now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Damages, Limitation

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.346891

Edmunds v Waugh: 1866

Citations:

(1866) LR 1 Eq 418

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedYorkshire 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.277162

Guidera v NEI Projects (India) Ltd: 17 Nov 1988

The plaintiff was exposed to asbestos in 1952 and 1953 and later diagnosed with asbestosis.
Held: He had suffered no injury by 4th June 1954 because physical injury would not occur for at least 5 (and more likely 10 – 20) years after exposure. Destruction of cells by macrophages or neurophils was not damage or injury for the purpose of creating a cause of action since destruction of cells in this way was a natural incident of daily life. This was so even on the basis that the claimant would, inevitably, suffer from asbestosis once exposure had begun.

Judges:

McCullough J

Citations:

Unreported, 17 November 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd CA 6-Feb-2006
The deceased had come into contact with asbestos when working on building sites for more than one contractor. The claimant here sought contribution from the defendants for the damages it had paid to his estate. The issue was as to liability on . .
Appeal fromGuidera v NEI Projects (India) Ltd CA 30-Jan-1990
The word ‘attributable’ in the Act means ‘capable of being attributed’, rather than ’caused by’. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.238331

Swann v Sowell: 1819

Where a party effectively admits a claim but only subject to his counterclaim which he seeks to set off against the claim, he does not acknowledge the debt for limitation purposes.

Citations:

(1819) 2 B and Ald 759

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Limitation

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.230379

Collins v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills: QBD 2 May 2013

The claimant was seriously ill and claimed that this arose from exposure to asbestos fibres working for the defendant many years before. He now sought an extension of time to make the claim.
Held: The court upheld the limitation defences of both defendants and dismissed the action:
i) The claimant did not have actual knowledge of the possible link between his lung cancer and his previous exposure to asbestos until July 2009 when he saw the advertisement. Therefore he commenced proceedings within the requisite three year period after the date of actual knowledge.
ii) The claimant had constructive knowledge under LA section 14 (3) of the possible link in mid-2003. This is because, as a reasonable man, he should by then have asked Dr Prejbisz about the possible causes of his cancer. If the claimant had done so, Dr Prejbisz would have mentioned asbestos exposure as a possible cause.
iii) Therefore under LA section 11 the limitation period expired in mid-2006. The claimant commenced his actions six years after expiry of the limitation period.
iv) Upon application of the criteria set out in LA section 33, it did not appear equitable to disapply the provisions of section 11. Therefore the defendants’ limitation defences succeeded.

Judges:

Nicol J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1117 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 33

Cited by:

Appeal fromCollins 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491918

Burns v Campbell: 1951

An action commenced by a plaintiff in a representative capacity which the plaintiff does not in fact possess is a nullity, and, further, that it makes no difference that the claim made in such an action is a claim under the Fatal Accidents Acts which the plaintiff could have supported in a personal capacity as being one of the dependants to whom the benefit of the Acts extends.

Citations:

[1952] 1 KB 15, [1951] 2 All ER 965

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRoberts v Gill and Co Solicitors and Others SC 19-May-2010
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Wills and Probate

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.415961

Tintin Exploration Syndicate Ltd v Sandys: 1947

The court considered the ability of a de facto director to rely on the 1939 Act as a defence to an action by the company to recover ‘trust property’.
Held: The defence failed. The court considered the circumstances in which fiduciary duties might arise, and said that the de facto directors exercised command and control over the company’s property and were consequently trustees for the purposes of the Limitation Act.

Judges:

Roxburgh J

Citations:

(1947) 111 LT 412

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1939

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedUltraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Limitation

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.230274

McCaul v Elias Wild: 14 Sep 1989

The plaintiff who had suffered pleural thickening from inhalation of asbestos fibres in 1943 – 1950 suffered no actionable injury until about 1985, when he first experienced breathlessness.

Judges:

McNeill J

Citations:

Unreported, 14 September 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ApprovedKeenen v Miller Insulation and Engineering Ltd 8-Dec-1987
The claimant’s cause of action for lung fibrosis did not arise at the time he was exposed to asbestos between August 1952 and May 1953 because at that stage he had not suffered physical injury by May 1953. Basing himself on the evidence of Dr Rudd . .

Cited by:

CitedBolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd CA 6-Feb-2006
The deceased had come into contact with asbestos when working on building sites for more than one contractor. The claimant here sought contribution from the defendants for the damages it had paid to his estate. The issue was as to liability on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.238332

Riniker v University College London: CA 31 Mar 1999

The writ office of the High Court unjustifiably rejected a writ which the plaintiff asked to be issued and did not issue it until the limitation period had expired. The court held that it had inherent jurisdiction to direct that the writ should be treated as if it had been issued on the date when it should have been issued.

Judges:

Evans LJ

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 1156

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoRiniker v University College London EAT 12-Dec-1995
. .
Appeal fromRiniker v University College London EAT 5-Feb-1997
. .
See AlsoRegina v Lord Chancellor and others ex parte Riniker CA 28-Feb-1997
The applicant sought judicial review of a refusal of her request that a judgment of the Court of Appeal should not be published.
Held: The applicants complaints were not well founded. ‘Her attempt to restrain publication of the Court of Appeal . .
See AlsoRiniker v University College London CA 25-Nov-1998
. .

Cited by:

CitedRiniker v University College London EAT 23-Aug-1999
EAT Contract of Employment – Breach of Contract
EAT Contract of Employment – Breach of Contract. . .
CitedSt. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council v Barnes CA 25-Oct-2006
The claimant had delivered his claim form to the court, but it was not processed until after the limitation period had expired. The defendant appealed a finding that the claimant had brought the cliam within the necessary time.
Held: The claim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Litigation Practice, Limitation

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.146071

Earnshaw and Others v Hartley: CA 31 Mar 1999

An administrator de son tort, who was also a beneficiary, held the estate property on trust, and so could not establish adverse possession against the estate during the period of trusteeship. He held a sufficient interest in the assets already. A delay in the application for the grant did not apply where time had not in any event begun to run before the application

Judges:

Lord Justice Nourse Lord Justice Buxton And Sir Christopher Staughton

Citations:

Gazette 21-Apr-1999, Times 29-Apr-1999, Gazette 12-May-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1141, [2000] Ch 155

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 Sch 1 Para 9, Administration of Estates Act 1925 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedCommissioner of Stamp Duties (Queensland) v Livingston PC 7-Oct-1964
A testator had died domiciled in New South Wales and with real and personal property both in New South Wales and in Queensland. He left one-third of his real and personal estate to his widow absolutely. She then died intestate, also domiciled in New . .
CitedRe Leigh’s Will Trusts; Handyside v Durbridge ChD 1970
The testatrix’s husband and only child had drowned in an accident. She was his administratrix and sole beneficiary under his intestacy. At his death, the husband had been the owner of 51% of the issued shares in a company and had been owed money by . .
CitedParadise Beach and Transportation Co Ltd v Price-Robinson PC 1968
(Bahamas) The provisions in the Acts of 1833 and 1874 did away with the earlier doctrine of ‘non adverse’ possession, under which, in the absence of an ouster, the possession of one joint tenant or tenant in common was regarded as the possession of . .
MentionedRe Deans 1954
A Probate Judge is not considered to be a trustee. . .
CitedIn Re Williams 1886
The purpose of the section is to allow time to run against an administrator as from the intestate’s death, irrespective of whether a grant of administration has been obtained or not. . .

Cited by:

CitedGreen and others v Gaul and Another; In re Loftus deceased ChD 18-Mar-2005
The claimants began an action in January 2003 to seek to set aside the appointment of an administrator from December 1991, and to have set aside transfers of property made within the estate.
Held: The limitation period against a personal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Wills and Probate, Limitation

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.146056

Shapland v Palmer: CA 23 Mar 1999

The plaintiff’s car was struck by a company car driven by the defendant in the course of her employment and she sought damages. Her action, against the employer, was struck out as late under the 1980 Act. She then commenced an action against the driver defendant.
Held: The plaintiff was allowed to seek the exercise of the court’s discretion. Where a plaintiff in a personal injury action issues against one party, but that claim is dismissed, the court retains the discretion to allow a subsequent claim on similar facts against a different party under the section.
Simon Brown LJ discussed the Walkley case: ‘Lord Wilberforce was there [p. 609 cited above] saying that as a matter of construction the particular prejudice to which the section 33 discretion is directed is that occasioned by the plaintiff not having issued his proceedings within the primary three-year limitation period. Once he has issued his proceedings within that period, then, for whatever reason they have ceased to exist – whether through failure to serve, strike out for want of prosecution, or discontinuance – section 33 simply has no application.
Although Lord Wilberforce observes that any prejudice resulting from the ultimate ineffectiveness of the first proceedings is due rather to the plaintiff’s inaction than to the act (i.e. the proceedings not having being issued in time), this observation seems to me strictly outside the ratio. It is, after all, plain that the section 33 discretion arises notwithstanding a plaintiff’s solicitors’ perhaps far greater negligence in failing ever to have issued proceedings within the primary limitation period in the first place. Indeed, as Lord Diplock expressly recognised in Thompson v Brown [1981] 1 W.L.R. 744, 752 that is an undoubted anomaly arising from the Walkley principle.
I accordingly understand the Walkley principle to exclude from section 33 only actions which involve the same defendant and the same cause of action as was the subject of the earlier, timeous proceedings.’ and ‘The general tendency of those cases, I have no doubt, is to support the plaintiff’s argument. In the first place, they suggest a marked unwillingness on the Court’s part to apply the Walkley case . . . unless it is plainly indistinguishable . . . ‘ and
‘By the same token that the Walkley principle itself rests upon a narrow and somewhat technical construction of section 33, so too it is, in my judgment, possible to escape it on just such grounds. That, moreover, is particularly appropriate given the undoubted anomalies that in any event arise from the application of the principle – most notably, as already pointed out, its failure to impact on cases of perhaps greater negligence where no writ was ever issued in the first place. I would accordingly rule that the section 33 discretion arises in all cases save those which fall four-square within the Walkley principle.’

Judges:

Simon Brown, Waller and Clarke LJJ

Citations:

Times 31-Mar-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1061, [1999] 1 WLR 2068, [1999] PIQR P249

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 33 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedWalkley 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, would be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Held: He . .
CitedForward v Hendricks CA 6-Dec-1996
. .
CitedDeerness 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 . .

Cited by:

CitedPiggott v Aulton (Deceased) CA 29-Jan-2003
The claimant had issued proceedings against the deceased after his death, but before a personal representative had been appointed. They later discontinued and re-issued against the person appointed by the court to defend the action. The defendant . .
CitedBarry Young (Deceased) v Western Power Distribution (South West) Plc CA 18-Jul-2003
The deceased had begun an action on becoming ill after exposure to asbestos by the defendant. He withdrew his action after receiving expert evidence that his illness was unrelated. A post-mortem examination showed this evidence to be mistaken. His . .
CitedJacqueline Adam v Rasal Ali CA 21-Feb-2006
The defendant sought damages against the defendant for personal injury from his alleged negligence. Her action was struck out and she recommenced the action. The defendant pleaded that she was out of time. The claimant said that the first action . .
CitedHorton v Sadler and Another HL 14-Jun-2006
The claimant had been injured in a road traffic accident for which the defendant was responsible in negligence. The defendant was not insured, and so a claim was to be made against the MIB. The plaintiff issued proceedings just before the expiry of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Personal Injury

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145976

Dale v Michelin Tyre Plc: CA 3 Mar 1999

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 886

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 33

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedCoad v Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority CA 17-Jul-1996
A nurse suffered a back injury in 1983 in the course of her employment. She left the employment of the health authority in either 1990 or 1991. The judge had accepted her evidence that she did not know that she had a right of action against her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145801

James v Williams: CA 8 Mar 1999

A beneficiary under an intestacy, who tried to position himself as owner of assets in the estate, became a constructive trustee of those assets, with or without letters of administration, and accordingly the claim for the return of the land was not time-barred. ‘Parliament, wittingly or unwittingly has drawn a distinction between personal representatives and executors on the one hand who are trustees and Executors de ses torts who are not.’ ‘a constructive trust attaches by law to property which is held by a person in circumstances where it would be inequitable to allow him to assert full beneficial ownership of the property.’

Judges:

The President Sir Stephen Brown Lord Justice Swinton Thomas Lord Justice Aldous

Citations:

Times 13-Apr-1999, Gazette 14-Apr-1999, Gazette 28-Apr-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 921

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 15(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Wills and Probate, Limitation, Trusts

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145836

Lucy v W T Henleys Telegraph Works Co Ltd (ICI Ltd, third party): 1970

Megaw LJ discussed the application of O 15 r 1(4): ‘Paragraph (2) of that rule provides that a court may allow a party to amend the writ ‘after any period of limitation current at the date of the issue of the writ has expired’ but this is expressly confined to the cases mentioned in paras (3), (4) and (5) of the rule. Paragraph (3) provides that an amendment to correct the name of a party may be allowed under para (2) notwithstanding that it is alleged that the effect of the amendment is to substitute a new party; but this power is explicitly confined to an amendment to correct the name where there is a genuine mistake which it is sought to correct. The addition of a new and different party is not correcting the name of a party; it is not a matter of mistake. The inference is inevitable that an amendment to add a completely new and different defendant is not permissible where a relevant period of limitation affecting the proposed defendant has expired.’

Judges:

Megaw LJ

Citations:

[1970] 1 QB 393

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRoberts v Gill and Co Solicitors and Others SC 19-May-2010
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.415955

Re Flynn (no 2): 1969

An acknowledgement of title to restart a limitation period must be precisely focused on a disputed right.

Citations:

[1969] 1 Ch 403

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoRe Flynn 1968
The court had to decide on the intentions of the deceased with regard to domicile: ‘In one sense there is no end to the evidence that may be adduced; for the whole of a man’s life and all that he has said and done, however trivial, may be prayed in . .

Cited by:

CitedOfulue and Another v Bossert CA 29-Jan-2008
The claimants appealed an order finding that the defendant had acquired their land by adverse possession. They said that the defendant had asserted in defence to possession proceedings that they were tenants, and that this contradicted an intent to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.264079

Markes v Coodes: 1997

Citations:

[1997] PNLQ 252

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 32

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedEzekiel 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Professional Negligence

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.263183

Robinson v Adair: QBD 2 Mar 1995

The Truro Crown Court had allowed Mr Adair’s appeal against his conviction for obstructing a highway. The prosecutor appealed.
Held: It had to be decided whether a particular road had become by presumed dedication a public highway. The use relied on constituted an offence under section 34(1) of the 1988 Act. A claim of long user which was based upon acts prohibited by statute cannot found a claim for a public right of way. The court could see no rational distinction between acquisition of a private easement by presumed grant after long illegal user and the presumed dedication of a highway after long illegal user.

Judges:

Dyson J

Citations:

Times 02-Mar-1995, [1995] NPC 30

Statutes:

Highways Act 1980 137, Road Traffic Act 1988 34(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHanning and Others v Top Deck Travel Group Ltd CA 9-Jun-1993
The owner of a common appealed a finding that the neighbouring land owner had acquired by prescription a right of way across the common to use a track for commercial vehicles (buses) to get to the property (the bus depot).
Held: An easement . .

Cited by:

CitedBakewell Management Limited v Brandwood and others HL 1-Apr-2004
Houses were built next to a common. Over many years the owners had driven over the common. The landowners appealed a decision that they could not acquire a right of way by prescription over the common because such use had been unlawful as a criminal . .
CitedHereford and Worcester County Council v Pick 1-Apr-1995
The issue was whether a presumed dedication of a road as a public highway could result from twenty years or more of uninterrupted public use in breach of section 34(1) of the 1988 Act. The court was considering whether a footpath, alleged to have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.88823

McDonnell v McKinty: 1847

Discontinuance of possession of land can occur where the paper title owner having abandoned possession, actual possession is taken by another person in whose favour or for whose protection the Limitation Act could operate.

Judges:

Blackburn CJ

Citations:

(1847) 10 ILR 514

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRoberts v Crown Estate Commissioners CA 20-Feb-2008
The commissioners sought to claim title to a foreshore by adverse possession. The claimant asserted that he had acquired title in his capacity of Lord Marcher of Magor which had owned the bed of the estuary since the Norman Conquest, and that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.264650

Sion v Hampstead Health Authority: CA 27 May 1994

An amendment to pleadings was allowed after the limitation period had expired in order to add a claim based on the same facts. The claim was brought by the father of a young man injured in a motor cycle accident. For fourteen days the father stayed at his son’s bedside, watching him deteriorate in health and fall into a coma and then die. The father now appealed against an order striking out his claim.
Held: Appeal dismissed, finding that there was no trace in the medical report of ‘shock’ no sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event. The report described a process continuing for some time, from first arrival at the hospital to the appreciation of medical negligence after the inquest. In particular the son’s death when it occurred was not surprising but expected. There was no reason in logic why a breach of duty causing an incident involving no violence or suddenness, such as where the wrong medicine is negligently given to a hospital patient, could not lead to a claim for damages for nervous shock, for example where the negligence has fatal results and a visiting close relative, wholly unprepared for what has occurred, finds the body and thereby sustains a sudden and unexpected shock to the nervous system.

Judges:

Peter Gibson LJ, Staughton LJ, Waite LJ

Citations:

Times 10-Jun-1994, [1994] 5 Med LR 170, [1994] EWCA Civ 26

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedNorth Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters CA 6-Dec-2002
A new mother woke in hospital to see her baby (E) fitting. E suffered a major epileptic seizure leading to coma and irreparable brain damage. E was transferred to a London hospital and the following day the claimant was told by a consultant that E’s . .
CitedTaylor v A Novo (UK) Ltd CA 18-Mar-2013
The deceased had suffered a head injury at work from the defendant’s admitted negligence. She had been making a good recovery but then collapsed and died at home from pulmonary emboli, and thrombosis which were a consequence of the injury. The . .
CitedPaul and Another v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust QBD 4-Jun-2020
Nervous shock – liability to third parties
The claimants witnessed the death of their father from a heart attack. They said that the defendant’s negligent treatment allowed the attack to take place. Difficult point of law about the circumstances in which a defendant who owes a duty of care . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Damages, Personal Injury, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.89280

Byrne and Byrne v Hall Pain and Foster (a Firm) and others: CA 11 Dec 1998

The cause of action in an action for professional negligence in purchase of land ran from the date of exchange of contracts not completion, and the limitation period was to be calculated accordingly.

Judges:

Simon Brown, Otton, Schiemann LJJ

Citations:

Times 08-Jan-1999, Gazette 03-Feb-1999, [1998] EWCA Civ 1939, [1999] 1 WLR 1849, [1999] PNLR 565

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Limitation, Professional Negligence

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.145418

Roberts vWinbow (3): CA 4 Dec 1998

The plaintiff was treated for depression by the defendant by prescription of drugs. She sufferred a reaction, but now claimed that the doctor’s slow reaction caused her to suffer lasting injury. The question on appeal was, if a plaintiff suffers injuries some of which the plaintiff knows to be attributable to the act or omission of the defendant which is alleged to constitute negligence, but the main part of which is not to the plaintiff’s knowledge attributable in whole or in part to the act or omission of the defendant which is alleged to constitute negligence, does the three year period commence when the plaintiff has knowledge that the lesser part of the injury is attributable, or does the three year period start only when the plaintiff has knowledge that the greater part of the injury is attributable? The discovery of a cause of action was at the point where a plaintiff discovered that a lesser part of her injuries were attributable to the cause, not later when the majority was attributed, and limitation ran accordingly.

Judges:

Lord Justice Roch, And Mrs Justice Hale

Citations:

Times 12-Jan-1999, Gazette 27-Jan-1999, [1998] EWCA Civ 1917

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 11(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedSpargo v North Essex District Health Authority CA 13-Mar-1997
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 . .
CitedDobbie v Medway Health Authority CA 11-May-1994
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 . .
CitedLevy v Spyers 1856
‘It is negligence where there are two ways of doing a thing, and one is clearly right, and the other is doubtful, to do it in the doubtful way’ . .
CitedDonovan v Gwentoys Ltd HL 1990
The plaintiff, then a 16 year old girl slipped and fell whilst employed at the defendant’s factory. The limitation period expired on her 21st birthday. She commenced proceedings five and a half months after that date. The judge extended time under . .
CitedBentley v Bristol and Western Hospital Authority 1991
. .
CitedHartley v Birmingham City District Council CA 1992
The writ was issued one day late; there had been early notification of the claim; and the defendant’s ability to defend the case was unaffected. The plaintiff asked the court to exercide its discretion to allow the claim t proceed.
Held: The . .
CitedMcCafferty v Metropolitan Police Receiver CA 1977
The test of whether a plaintiff had sufficient knowledge to justify the start of time running against her takes into account her subjective characteristics but then applies an outsider’s view of what she should have thought.
Geoffrey Lane LJ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Professional Negligence

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.145396

Barnstable Boat Co Ltd v Jones: CA 2008

Waller LJ (with whom Moore-Bick and Moses LJJ agreed) set out the test for discovery of a fraud as being knowledge of the precise deceit which the claimant alleges has been perpetrated on him.

Judges:

Waller, Moore-Bick and Moses LJJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 727

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBoyse (International) Ltd v Natwest Markets Plc and Another ChD 27-May-2020
Claim alleging misselling of interest rate hedging products. The court considered the defendants strike out application, and applications for leave to amend pleadings.
Held: it will normally be appropriate for summary judgment to be pursued on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Torts – Other

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.651076

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 for many claimants to satisfy the s.32(1) test.’
The approach indicated by Henderson LJ in Gresport Finance v Battaglia was to be understood on the basis that: ‘ . . the drafters of s.32(1) were assuming that there would in fact be something which (objectively) had put the claimant on notice as to the need to investigate, to which the statutory reasonable diligence requirement would then attach (and which involved an assumption that the claimant desired to investigate the matter as to which it was or ought to have been put on enquiry).’
The approach he had summarised is consistent with the views of other judges, as to what may amount to a ‘trigger’ and observed that: ‘There will be many claims when it will be objectively apparent that ‘something has gone wrong’ – where the claimant has lost property, failed to receive something it expected to receive, or suffered injury of some kind – which event ought itself to prompt the claimant to ask ‘why’ and investigate accordingly.’

Judges:

Foxton J

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 415 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 32(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedGresport 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 . . .

Cited by:

PreferredBoyse (International) Ltd v Natwest Markets Plc and Another ChD 27-May-2020
Claim alleging misselling of interest rate hedging products. The court considered the defendants strike out application, and applications for leave to amend pleadings.
Held: it will normally be appropriate for summary judgment to be pursued on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Torts – Other

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.648590

DSG Retail Limited and Another v Mastercard Incorporated and Others: CAT 14 Feb 2019

Roth J explained Henderson L’s observation in Gresport as meaning that: ‘ . . the concept of reasonable diligence is to be applied on the assumption that the claimant is on notice of the need to investigate’.

Judges:

Roth J

Citations:

[2019] CAT 5

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedGresport 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 . . .

Cited by:

See AlsoDSG Retail Ltd and Another v Mastercard Incorporated and Others CAT 9-Apr-2019
. .
CitedBoyse (International) Ltd v Natwest Markets Plc and Another ChD 27-May-2020
Claim alleging misselling of interest rate hedging products. The court considered the defendants strike out application, and applications for leave to amend pleadings.
Held: it will normally be appropriate for summary judgment to be pursued on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, Limitation, Torts – Other

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.636201

Cunningham v Ellis and Others: ComC 30 Nov 2018

For limitation purposes, discovery of an alleged fraud means knowledge of the ‘essential facts constituting the alleged fraud’ is required.

Judges:

Teare J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 3188 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBoyse (International) Ltd v Natwest Markets Plc and Another ChD 27-May-2020
Claim alleging misselling of interest rate hedging products. The court considered the defendants strike out application, and applications for leave to amend pleadings.
Held: it will normally be appropriate for summary judgment to be pursued on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Limitation

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.631320

O’Connor v Bar Standards Board: SC 6 Dec 2017

The claimant barrister complained of the manner of conduct of the disciplinary proceedings brought against her. She had been cleared of any breach of the Bar Code of Conduct, but her claim was then ruled out of time under section 7(5)(a), time having begun on the initial ruling against her.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The Appellant’s challenge was to the disciplinary proceedings against her, not to an alleged state of affairs in which BME lawyers were more likely to be the subject of such proceedings. Therefore, the bringing and pursuit of the disciplinary proceedings must be the focus of the investigation in terms of section 7(5)(a) of the 1998 Act. That section must not be read narrowly and must be allowed to provide an affective and workable remedy, particularly where what was complained of was a course of conduct. Here, there had been a single and continuing action. It had not been Parliament’s intention to have limitation calculated individually from each element of the process. The period ran from when the process ceased, not from when it began, and in this case it was from the time when the Visitors eventually allowed her appeal.

Judges:

Lady Hale, President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 78, [2018] 2 All ER 779, [2017] WLR(D) 813, [2017] 1 WLR 4833, [2018] HRLR 2, UKSC 2016/0174

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Videos Summary, SC 2017 Oct 04 am Video, SC 2017 Oct 04 pm Video

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At QBDO’Connor v Bar Standards Board QBD 18-Dec-2014
Appeal against an order of Deputy Master Eyre by which he struck out the appellant’s statements of case and dismissed the action with judgment for the defendant with costs. The claimant said that the procedures adopted by the Board in disciplinary . .
Appeal fromO’Connor v Bar Standards Board CA 25-Jul-2016
The appellant said that the Board had infringed her human rights in its approach to disciplinary proceedings brought against her. She had been cleared and now sought a remedy. The Board successfully argued that her claims were out of time.
CitedDH v Czech Republic ECHR 13-Nov-2007
(Grand Chamber) The applicants complained that their children had been moved to special schools which did not reflect their needs from ordinary schools without them being consulted.
Held: The Court noted that, at the relevant time, the . .
CitedRehman v The Bar Standards Board Admn 29-Jul-2016
The barrister appealed against two findingd of the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Council of the Inns of Court. . .
CitedLincoln v Daniels CA 1961
The defendant claimed absolute immunity in respect of communications sent by him to the Bar Council alleging professional misconduct by the plaintiff, a Queen’s Counsel.
Held: Initial communications sent to the secretary of the Bar Council . .
CitedIn re S (A Barrister) 1970
(Inns of Court) The regulation of barristers has been delegated by the judges to the Inns of Court. Five judges sitting as Visitors of the Inns of Court stated that ‘the judges as visitors have always had supervisory powers and their decision, upon . .
CitedDelcourt v Belgium ECHR 17-Jan-1970
The applicant had failed in appeals against conviction and sentence for offences of fraud and forgery before the Belgian Cour de Cassation. He complained that he had not enjoyed the right to a fair trial recognised by Article 6(1) of the Convention . .
CitedSampanis and Others v Greece ECHR 8-Aug-2011
Resolution as to execution of judgment . .
CitedOrsus And Others v Croatia ECHR 16-Mar-2010
(Grand Chamber) Fifteen Croatians of Roma origin complained that they were victims of racial discrimination in that they were segregated into Roma-only classes and consequently suffered educational, psychological and emotional damage.
Held: . .
CitedEckle v Germany ECHR 15-Jul-1982
Two fraud prosecutions against the claimants had lasted for 15 and 20 years respectively.
Held: Article 6.1 applies to all stages of criminal proceedings, including sentencing and any appeal. The ‘reasonable time’ in criminal matters, . .
CitedRegina v Visitors to the Inns of Court ex parte Calder CA 1993
Two barristers had been struck off for disciplinary offences. Their appeals were heard by three High Court judges sitting as Visitors, who dismissed the appeals. The barristers now sought judicial review of that decision.
Held: Justices . .
CitedSomerville v Scottish Ministers HL 24-Oct-2007
The claimants complained of their segregation while in prison. Several preliminary questions were to be decided: whether damages might be payable for breach of a Convention Right; wheher the act of a prison governor was the act of the executive; . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Human Rights, Discrimination, Limitation

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.599756

Woodeson and Another v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd: CA 17 May 2018

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 other claim is permissible. That is because it is arguable that the time for a deceit claim (as opposed to claims for negligent advice or breach of statutory duty) is extended pursuant to section 32 of the 1980 Act and that the anti-set off provisions may be unreasonable clauses within the relevant statutory provisions, on which the bank may not rely.

Judges:

Longmore, Leggatt LJJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1103

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 32

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBoyse (International) Ltd v Natwest Markets Plc and Another ChD 27-May-2020
Claim alleging misselling of interest rate hedging products. The court considered the defendants strike out application, and applications for leave to amend pleadings.
Held: it will normally be appropriate for summary judgment to be pursued on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Banking, Limitation, Contract, Torts – Other

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.616341

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 Neuberger LJ is an assumption on the part of the draftsman of section 32(1), because the concept of reasonable diligence only makes sense if there has been something to put the claimant on notice of the need to investigate whether there has been a fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be’.

Judges:

Henderson L

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 540

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 32(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedThe Law Society v Sephton and Co and others CA 13-Dec-2004
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 . .

Cited by:

CitedBoyse (International) Ltd v Natwest Markets Plc and Another ChD 27-May-2020
Claim alleging misselling of interest rate hedging products. The court considered the defendants strike out application, and applications for leave to amend pleadings.
Held: it will normally be appropriate for summary judgment to be pursued on . .
CitedDSG Retail Limited and Another v Mastercard Incorporated and Others CAT 14-Feb-2019
Roth J explained Henderson L’s observation in Gresport as meaning that: ‘ . . the concept of reasonable diligence is to be applied on the assumption that the claimant is on notice of the need to investigate’. . .
CitedGranville 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agency, Torts – Other, Limitation

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.608348

Hussain v Mukhtar: QBD 2 Mar 2016

Allegation of fraudulent misrepresentation to secure business investment.
Held: The context may be relevant to what the claimant could with reasonable diligence have discovered but the alleged or actual naivety or inexperience of a claimant are not relevant factors

Judges:

Chamberlain QC

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 424 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBoyse (International) Ltd v Natwest Markets Plc and Another ChD 27-May-2020
Claim alleging misselling of interest rate hedging products. The court considered the defendants strike out application, and applications for leave to amend pleadings.
Held: it will normally be appropriate for summary judgment to be pursued on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Limitation

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.561113

Allison and Another v Horner: CA 12 Feb 2014

Aikens LJ said that mere knowledge of fraud in a general sense is not enough to start the limitation period running: ‘ . . knowledge of the deceit alleged on the part of a claimant’s agent will be insufficient to start the limitation period running under section 32(1). Similarly, the fact that the claimant’s agent could with reasonable diligence have discovered the alleged deceit does not start the limitation period running.’

Judges:

Aikens LJ

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Civ 117

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBoyse (International) Ltd v Natwest Markets Plc and Another ChD 27-May-2020
Claim alleging misselling of interest rate hedging products. The court considered the defendants strike out application, and applications for leave to amend pleadings.
Held: it will normally be appropriate for summary judgment to be pursued on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Torts – Other

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.521207

Horton v Sadler and Another: CA 28 Jun 2004

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 936

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromHorton v Sadler and Another HL 14-Jun-2006
The claimant had been injured in a road traffic accident for which the defendant was responsible in negligence. The defendant was not insured, and so a claim was to be made against the MIB. The plaintiff issued proceedings just before the expiry of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.245876

McBride v The Body Shop International Plc: QBD 10 Jul 2007

The claimant sought damages for libel in an internal email written by her manager, accusing her of being a compulsive liar. The email had not been disclosed save in Employment Tribunal proceedings, and the claimant sought permission to use the email and to extend the limitation period saying it had been withheld.
Held: There had been no obligation to reveal the email, and the claimant could not explain her own delay in commencing the proceedings. The court did not extend the period to allow the action to proceed.
Eady J said: ‘I have concluded that the balance of justice lies very much in favour of prohibiting the use of this disclosed document for the extraneous purpose of claiming damages for defamation in respect of what appears to be a limited publication. That is sufficient to dispose of the applications now before me in the Defendant’s favour.’

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1658 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHenderson v Henderson 20-Jul-1843
Abuse of Process and Re-litigation
The court set down the principles to be applied in abuse of process cases, where a matter was raised again which should have been dealt with in earlier proceedings.
Sir James Wigram VC said: ‘In trying this question I believe I state the rule . .
CitedRiddick v Thames Board Mills Ltd CA 1977
An action was brought by a disgruntled former employee. He had been summarily dismissed and had been escorted from the premises of his employers. In the first action he claimed damages for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment based on the latter . .
CitedSteinberg v Pritchard Englefield (A Firm) and Another CA 3-Mar-2005
The defendant appealed dismissal of his defence to an action in defamation.
Held: The court proceeded in his absence, discerning two grounds of appeal from the papers. He had suggested that he awaited pro bono representation but was by . .
CitedHome Office v Hariette Harman HL 11-Feb-1982
The defendant had permitted a journalist to see documents revealed to her as in her capacity as a solicitor in the course of proceedings.
Held: The documents were disclosed under an obligation to use them for the instant case only. That rule . .
CitedMahon and Another v Rahn and Others (1) CA 12-Jun-1997
Two company directors sued Swiss bankers who had responded to enquiries from the police in London. The charges which followed had been dismissed, and the directors sued in defamation, seeking to rely upon the materials sent to the police.
CitedJohnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
CitedDow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel CA 3-Feb-2005
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 . .
CitedLilly Icos Ltd v Pfizer Ltd (No 2) CA 23-Jan-2002
The respondent sought an order to maintain the confidentiality of documents disclosed during patent revocation proceedings. It now appealed an order refusing confidentiality.
Held: Under normal circumstances, a party requesting such an order . .
CitedSomerville v Hawkins 1851
It is necessary for a claimant who wishes to prove malice in an alleged defamation to plead and prove facts which are more consistent with its presence than with its absence. Mawle J said: ‘it is certainly not necessary in order to enable a . .
CitedAlexander v Arts Council of Wales CA 9-Apr-2001
In a defamation action, where the judge considered that, taken at their highest, the allegations made by the claimant would be insufficient to establish the claim, he could grant summary judgment for the defence. If the judge considered that a . .
CitedTelnikoff v Matusevitch CA 1991
The court considered the element of malice in a defamation defence: ‘If a piece of evidence is equally consistent with malice and the absence of malice, it cannot as a matter of law provide evidence on which the jury could find malice. The judge . .

Cited by:

CitedIG Index Plc v Cloete QBD 11-Dec-2013
The defendant applied to have struck out the claim, saying that it was based upon a misuse of documents disclosed during an employment tribunal case, and was an abuse since the claimants had not sought the permission of the Tribunal for a second use . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Limitation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.254518

The Law Society v Sephton and Co and others: CA 13 Dec 2004

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 barred, but those in fraud were.
Neuberger LJ (dissenting) said that an assumption is made for the purposes of assessing what the claimant could have discovered with reasonable diligence that the claimant desires to discover whether or not there has been a fraud.

Judges:

Lord Justice Carnwath, Lord Justice Neuberger and Lord Justice Maurice Kay

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1627, Times 11-Jan-2005, [2005] QB 1013

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Solicitors Act 1974, Limitation Act 1980 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedLaw Society v KPMG Peat Marwick and Others ChD 3-Nov-1999
An accountant, auditing a firm of solicitors, and providing a certificate to the Law Society knew that the Society and its compensation fund would rely upon that certificate and so owed it a duty of care. A negligently given certificate could lead . .
CitedCave 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 . .
CitedPolley v Warner Goodman and Streat (A Firm) CA 30-Jun-2003
A cause of action in negligence is complete once the claimant has suffered loss as a result of the negligence, even if the existence of the loss (and indeed of the negligence) is not, and could not be, known to him, and even where that loss is much . .
CitedCartledge v E Jopling and Sons Ltd HL 1963
The plaintiffs were steel dressers who, in the course of their employment, had inhaled quantities of noxious dust which had caused them to suffer from pneumoconiosis. They issued proceedings on 1 October 1956 but were unable to show any breach of . .
CitedForster v Outred and Co CA 1981
A mother signed a mortgage deed charging her property to H as security for a loan to her son. She claimed the solicitor had been negligent in his advice. The solicitor replied that the claim was out of time. The loss accrued not when demand for . .
CitedNykredit Mortgage Bank Plc v Edward Erdman Group Ltd (No 2) HL 27-Nov-1997
A surveyor’s negligent valuation had led to the plaintiff obtaining what turned out to be inadequate security for his loan. A cause of action against a valuer for his negligent valuation arises when a relevant and measurable loss is first recorded. . .
CitedKhan v R M Falvey and Co (a Firm) CA 22-Mar-2002
The claimant sought damages from his former solicitors for failing to act to avoid his case being struck out. The second action was itself delayed, and the defendants asserted that the cause of action occurred not when his claim was actually struck . .
CitedHatton v Messrs Chafes (A Firm) CA 13-Mar-2003
The defendant firm appealed against a refusal to strike out the claimant’s claim for professional negligence, asserting that the judge should have considered the limitation issue in the light of Khan v Falvey.
Held: By the time that the . .
CitedKnapp v Ecclesiastical Insurance Group Plc and Another CA 30-Oct-1997
A claim in negligence was brought against insurance brokers for failing to advise the claimant of certain matters with the result that an insurance policy entered into by the claimant was voidable for non-disclosure.
Held: The claimant . .
CitedWardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia 1992
(High Court of Australia) A claim was based on a statutory trade indemnity scheme. The insurers claimed damages from Wardley, on the basis that its alleged deceit induced them to grant an indemnity, which was subsequently called on.
Held: . .
CitedTelfair Shipping Operation SA v Inersea Carriers SA, the Caroline P 1984
A claim was made in contract based on an indemnity.
Held: The claim was not time-barred. Time normally begins to run against a claim on a general indemnity only from the moment when the liability of the indemnified is accepted by him or . .
CitedMilton v Walker and Stanger 1981
The plaintiff instructed her solicitor to prepare documents and advise on a gift from P’s uncle to P and her cousin W in the proportions 2/3:1/3. P and W agreed that, should the farm be sold, the costs and capital gains tax (CGT) arising there from . .
CitedRobert Mark Gordon v J B Wheatley and Co (a Firm) CA 24-May-2000
The defendant solicitors had negligently advised the claimant in connection with a mortgage scheme he operated for customers. His case was that the defendants had negligently failed to advise him to register under s3 of the 1986 Act. The claimant . .
CitedD W Moore and Co Ltd v Ferrier CA 1988
The company took in a new director and shareholder, and relied upon their solicitors to draft a covenant to restrain him competing within a set time of leaving the company. The covenant turned out to be ineffective. The defendant solicitors replied . .
CitedPirelli General Cable Works v Oscar Faber and Partners HL 2-Jan-1983
The plaintiff asked the defendant consulting engineer to design an extension to their factory in 1969. Not later than in April 1970, cracks developed in the chimney. In 1977 the cause of the damage was discovered. It arose from design faults in the . .
CitedJames 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 . .
CitedParagon 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. . .
CitedRegina v Law Society ex parte Ingman Foods Oy Ab Admn 17-Jan-1997
The claimant sought compensation from the respondent for the actions of his solicitor. The Society resisted saying that the claimant was himself largely responsible for his losses. . .
CitedBell v Peter Browne and Co CA 1990
Mr Bell asked his solicitors to transfer the matrimonial home into his wife’s sole name. He was to receive a one-sixth interest of the gross proceeds on a sale. His interests were to be protected by a trust deed or mortgage. The solicitor drafted . .
CitedDaniels v Thompson CA 18-Mar-2004
The executor brought an action against the solicitor who had advised his client in connection with the transfer of her house in which she was to continue to live, saying he should have advised her that the gift would not protect her from Inheritance . .
Appeal fromThe Law Society v Sephton and Co and others ChD 2004
The Law Society claimed in negligence against the defendant firm of accountants who had wrongly certified the accounts of a firm of solicitors. The Society sought to recover the payments it had made from its compensation fund. The defendant pleaded . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromLaw Society v Sephton and Co (a Firm) and Others HL 10-May-2006
A firm of solicitors had a member involved in a substantial fraud. The defendant firm of accountants certified the firm’s accounts. There were later many calls upon the compensation fund operated by the claimants, who sought recovery in turn from . .
CitedGresport 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 . . .
CitedBoyse (International) Ltd v Natwest Markets Plc and Another ChD 27-May-2020
Claim alleging misselling of interest rate hedging products. The court considered the defendants strike out application, and applications for leave to amend pleadings.
Held: it will normally be appropriate for summary judgment to be pursued on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Limitation

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.220349

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 subject to the exception which would extend the limitation period.
Held: The bank’s appeal succeeded. The definition of ‘trustee’ in section 21 of the 1980 Act did not apply to include someone deemed to be a trustee for acting as a dishonest assistant or knowing recipient within a fraudulent scheme. He could only be a consructive trustee.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Hughes

Citations:

[2014] UKSC 10, 16 ITELR 740, [2014] WLR(D) 88, [2014] 2 All ER 489, [2014] 2 WLR 355, [2014] WTLR 873, UKSC 2012/0113

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 21(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoWilliams v Central Bank of Nigeria QBD 8-Apr-2011
The claimant had been defrauded by a customer of the defendant bank. He brought a claim against the bank, saying that they knew or ought to have known of the fraudster’s activities, and were liable. The Bank denied that the UK courts had . .
See AlsoWilliams v Central Bank of Nigeria QBD 24-Jan-2012
The claimant asserted involvement by the defendant bank in a fraud perpetrated against him. Jurisdiction had already been admitted for one trust , and now the claimant sought to add two further claims.
Held: ‘None of the gateways to English . .
See AlsoCentral Bank of Nigeria v Williams CA 3-Apr-2012
The claimant alleged that he had been defrauded and accused the appellant of involvement in the fraud. The Bank appealed against a finding that the claim against it was not time limited.
Held: The appeal failed. The action was by a beneficiary . .
See AlsoWilliams v Central Bank of Nigeria CA 2-Jul-2013
The claimant appealed against an order dis-allowing service on it out of the jurisdiction.
Held: Dr Williams’ appeal in respect of the Nigerian law claim was allowed but rejected in respect of the trust claim and the contract claim. . .
CitedBeckford v Wade PC 1805
(Jamaica) The board was concerned with the application of the English statutes of limitation, which were held to apply in Jamaica subject to a Jamaican statute excepting (among other people) trustees. Sir William Grant MR said: ‘The question then . .
CitedHovenden v Lord Annesley 1806
Referring to a judgment of Lord Macclesfield on the application of statutory limitation by analogy to claims against trustees for breach of trust, he continued: ‘Now I take it that the position which has been laid down, ‘that trust and fraud are not . .
CitedParagon 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. . .
CitedSelangor United Rubber Estates Ltd v Cradock (No 3) ChD 1968
The expressions ‘constructive trust’ and ‘constructive trustee’ are ‘nothing more than a formula for equitable relief. It is the actual control of assets belonging beneficially to a company which causes the law to treat directors as analogous to . .
CitedBonney v Ridgard 3-Dec-1784
A purchaser of leasehold premises from an executor need not (in general) see to the application of the purchase money, nor need there be any recital in such an assignment of the purpose for which it is sold ; but if on the face of the assignment it . .
CitedWilson v Moore 22-Mar-1834
Merchants who, by the direction of an executor, their commercial correspondent, applied a fund, which they knew to be part of the testator’s assets, in satisfaction of advances made by them, in the course of trade, to relieve the embarrasments of . .
CitedBarnes v Addy 12-Feb-1874
A stranger to a trust can be liable in equity for assisting in a breach of trust, even though he received no trust property.
Lord Selborne said: ‘Now in this case we have to deal with certain persons who are trustees, and with certain other . .
CitedSoar v Ashwell CA 1893
Trustees under a will had entrusted the trust fund to a solicitor for investment. The solicitor exercised all of their administrative and investment powers for them and distributed part of the fund invested to the beneficiaries under the will but . .
CitedIn re Gallard 1897
. .
CitedIn re Eyre-Williams 1923
. .
CitedHeynes v Dixon 1900
. .
CitedIn re Jane Davies 1891
An action brought by a residuary legatee against an executor for the administration of the testator’s estate is an action for a legacy.
An executor, qua executor, is not an express trustee. . .
CitedIn re Lacy; Royal General Theatrical Fund Association v Kydd 1899
Equity prevents trustees from raising limitation against their beneficiaries.
An executor, qua executor, is not an express trustee. . .
CitedTaylor v Davies PC 19-Dec-1919
(Ontario) An assignee for the benefit of creditors conveyed mortgaged property to the mortgagee in satisfaction of part of the debt due to him. The mortgagee was also one of the inspectors required by the Canadian legislation to supervise the . .
CitedClarkson v Davies PC 1923
In a case involving fraud, referring to Taylor v Davies, Lord Justice Clerk said that: ‘it was there laid down that there is a distinction between a trust which arises before the occurrence of the transaction impeached and cases which arises only by . .
CitedRoyal Brunei Airlines SDN BHD v Tan PC 24-May-1995
(Brunei) The defendants were a one-man company, BLT, and the one man, Mr Tan. A dishonest third party to a breach of trust was liable to make good a resulting loss even though he had received no trust property. The test of knowledge was an objective . .
CitedDeg-Deutsch Investitions Und Entwicklungsgesellschaft Mbh v Koshy (No 3) Gwembe Valley Development Co Ltd v Same (No 3) ChD 26-Oct-2001
A claim against a company director which alleged a misapplication of company assets involving a fraudulent, or dishonest breach of trust, was not subject to a limitation period. A company was alleged to have fraudulently hidden certain profits. The . .
CitedDEG-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 . .
CitedHalton International Inc (Holding) and Another v Guernroy Ltd ChD 9-Sep-2005
Parties had entered into a shareholders’ agreement as to voting arrengemets within a company. Thay disputed whether votes had been used in reach of that agreement, particularly as to the issue of new shares and their allotment, but the court now . .
CitedHalton International Inc Another v Guernroy Ltd CA 27-Jun-2006
The parties had been involved in investing in an airline to secure its future, but it was now said that one party had broken the shareholders’ or voting agreement in not allowing further investments on a pari passu basis. The defendants argued that . .
CitedCattley 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 . .
CitedPeconic Industrial Development Ltd v Lau Kwok FAI 27-Feb-2009
Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. The limitation period for a claim in dishonest assistance is 6 years. For limitation purposes a distinction is to be made between two kinds of constructive trustees: those who are fiduciaries and those who are . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Banking, Torts – Other, Limitation

Leading Case

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.521993

Gray v Wykeham Martin and Goode: 17 Jan 1977

Citations:

Unreported, 17 January 1977

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Hounslow v Anne Minchinton CA 19-Mar-1997
The defendant asserted title to a strip of land by adverse possession. The judge had held that the occupation by the claimant had been insufficient to establish possession.
Held: The use of the land as a garden for compost heaps and similar . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.195612

Re Lands Allotment Company: CA 1894

A limited company is not a trustee of its funds, but their beneficial owner. However, the fiduciary character of the duties of its directors mean that they are treated as if they were trustees of those funds of the company which are in their hands or under their control, and if they misapply them they commit a breach of trust.
The court contrasted the conduct of two directors (one of whom, Mr Brock, was also chairman) in determining their responsibility for an ultra vires investment made by the company. Neither was present at the meeting at which the investment had been approved. Attendance at a later meeting at which the minutes of that meeting were confirmed was held to be insufficient to make either director liable. On the other hand statements made by Mr Brock showing he had taken an active part in the decision to make the investment were sufficient to hold him responsible for it. However the other director had been ‘away on the sea’ and ‘had nothing to do with the transaction at all’ which was ‘past praying for’ on his return. In a case of a company director being treated as a trustee within the limitation provisions of ss1(3) and 8(1) of the Trustee Act 1888 in respect of a claim that unauthorised investments had caused loss to the company. The court recognised the trustee-like nature of a director’s duties as very relevant to the statutory limitation periods for actions by beneficiaries against express trustees for breach of trust and for the recovery of trust property, whether those periods are applied directly or by analogy. In consequence of the fiduciary character of their duties the directors of a limited company are treated as if they were trustees of those funds of the company which are in their hands or under their control, and if they misapply them they commit a breach of trust.
Directors are not regarded as trustees merely by virtue of their office; but they are treated as trustees ‘of money which comes to their hands or which is actually under their control’ (per Lindley LJ); or ‘they are only trustees qua the particular property which is put into their hands or under their control’ (per Kay LJ).

Judges:

Lindley LJ and Kay L JJ

Citations:

[1894] 1 Ch 616

Statutes:

Trustee Act 1888 1(3) 8(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDEG-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 . .
CitedEquitable Life Assurance Society v Bowley and others ComC 17-Oct-2003
The claimant sought damages against its former directors for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. The defendants asked that the claims be struck out.
Held: It was no longer good law that directors might leave the conduct of the company’s . .
CitedBelmont Finance Corporation Ltd v Williams Furniture Ltd (No 2) 1980
It had been alleged that there had been a conspiracy involving the company giving unlawful financial assistance for the purchase of its own shares.
Held: Dishonesty is not a necessary ingredient of liability in an allegation of a ‘knowing . .
CitedUltraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
CitedHolland v Revenue and Customs and Another SC 24-Nov-2010
The Revenue sought an order under section 212 of the 1986 Act, for payment of the tax debts of the insolvent company by a de facto director. H had organised a scheme under which IT contractors had worked through companies created by him under a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Limitation, Equity

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.187430

BP Oil UK Ltd v Kent County Council: CA 13 Jun 2003

BP sought compensation after its land had been acquired compulsorily. The council said its claim was time barred. BP appealed from the Lands Tribunal, saying an agreement with the Authority had kept its claim alive.
Held: The fact of entry did not prevent purchase by agreement, which was usual. The agreement gave rise to a claim for consideration, and it was under that agreement that the authority had taken possession. Appeal allowed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice Mummery And Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 798, Gazette 04-Sep-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 9, Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedLondon Borough of Hillingdon v ARC Limited (No 2) CA 16-Jun-2000
The council entered upon land belonging to the company in accordance with the compulsory purchase procedures in 1982, but the company did not bring its claim for compensation until 1992. The council said the were out of time.
Held: Section 9 . .
CitedWest Midland Baptist (Trust) Association (Inc) v Birmingham Corporation HL 1970
The mere fact that an enactment shows that Parliament must have thought that the law was one thing, does not preclude the courts from deciding that the law was in fact something different. The position would be different if the provisions of the . .
CitedCapital Investments Ltd v Wednesfield Urban District Council ChD 12-Feb-1964
The council set out to acquire two plots of land for development for housing. After the process had begun, it was decided that some of the land should be uised for educational purposes. A Land Charge had been served but the matter not completed. A . .
CitedAmantilla Ltd v Telefusion plc 1987
The case concerned a quantum meruit claim under a building contract. Even though the basis of the claim lies in statute, nonetheless an agreement must be treated as an ‘acknowledgment’ of a ‘liquidated pecuniary claim’ for the purpose of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Damages, Limitation

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.183393

Richardson v Quercus Limited: IHCS 24 Dec 1998

The pursuer owned a flat on the second and top floors of a building damaged by renovation works carried out by the defenders to the basement and ground floor of the same building. He relied on a letter by the defenders’ loss adjusters confirming that they had no objection to the pursuer instructing the necessary remedial works to his property but which stated that it was written ‘without prejudice to liability’.
Held: The letter with previous correspondence, amounted to a relevant acknowledgment within the section of the subsistence of an obligation to make reparation which would otherwise have been extinguished by the five year negative prescription. That subsection provides that in order to constitute a relevant acknowledgement there must be an unequivocal written admission clearly acknowledging that the obligation still subsists.

Judges:

Lord Abernethy and Lord Johnston and Lord Prosser

Citations:

[1998] ScotCS 112, 1999 SC 278

Links:

Bailii, ScotC

Statutes:

Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 10(1)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

AprovedDaks Simpson Group plc v Kuiper 1994
The creditor sought summary judgment for an account for commissions earned. In a ‘without prejudice’ letter the defendant’s director said that he was prepared to accept that he had received such commissions in stated amounts.
Held: Lord . .

Cited by:

CitedBradford 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.169718

Darlington Building Society and Another v O’Rourke James Scourfield and Mccarthy (Sued As a Firm): CA 3 Nov 1998

In proceedings against solicitors alleging matters of one sort, the plaintiff was not allowed to amend his case to add new causes of action which were then limitation barred. In this case a new set of facts would need to be pleaded and proved.

Citations:

Times 20-Nov-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1664

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Limitation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.145143

JFS (UK) Limited Tilghman Wheelabrator Limited v Dwr Cymru Cyf: CA 18 Sep 1998

A positive averment by defendant short of a claim for relief did not constitute a ‘claim’ under the section, and the judge had jurisdiction to allow a later amendment claiming relief as an original counterclaim. It was not barred either under RSC 20 (5)

Citations:

Gazette 14-Oct-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1443, [1999] 1 WLR 231

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 35(3), Rules of the Supreme Court Ord 20 r(5)(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoJFS (UK) Limited (Previously Johnson Filtration Systems Limited), USF Surface Preparations Limited (Previously Tilghman Wheelabrator Limited) v Dwr Cymru Cyf TCC 14-Jan-1999
Contract. Contract for erection of water treatment works. Whether still in force in relation to a new site when planning permission for original site refused. Effect of express term: ‘Should planning permission be refused and the Works moved to an . .
App4eal fromJFS (UK) Limited v South West Water Services Limited TCC 22-Apr-1998
. .

Cited by:

See AlsoJFS (UK) Limited (Previously Johnson Filtration Systems Limited), USF Surface Preparations Limited (Previously Tilghman Wheelabrator Limited) v Dwr Cymru Cyf TCC 14-Jan-1999
Contract. Contract for erection of water treatment works. Whether still in force in relation to a new site when planning permission for original site refused. Effect of express term: ‘Should planning permission be refused and the Works moved to an . .
Appealed toJFS (UK) Limited v South West Water Services Limited TCC 22-Apr-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.144922

Gordon and Others (Trustees of The Inter Vivos Trust) v Campbell Riddell Breeze Paterson Llp: SC 15 Nov 2017

The claimants appealed from rejection of their claims for losses saying that such losses had been caused by their solicitors in failing properly to identify the tenant and the relevant lease when issuing notices to quit. The solicitors argued that the losses occurred when the defective notices were served, and by that date, the claims were debarred as out of time.
Held: The appeal failed. Section 11(3) does not postpone the start of the prescriptive period until a creditor of an obligation is aware actually or constructively that he or she has suffered a detriment in the sense that something has gone awry rendering the creditor poorer or otherwise at a disadvantage. The creditor does not have to know that he or she has a head of loss. It is sufficient that a creditor is aware that he or she has not obtained something which the creditor had sought or that he or she has incurred expenditure.
The Court accepted that the result may be harsh for some suffering loss, but also acknowledged that reform was being discussed.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 75, UKSC 2016/0142

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Videos Summary, SC 2017 Jul 19am Video

Statutes:

Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Appeal fromGordon and Others v Campbell Riddell Breeze Paterson Llp SCS 8-Mar-2016
(Extra Division, Inner House) The claimant trustees appealed from rejection of their claims of professional negligence against the defendant solicitors as out of time. The parties disputed whether the limitation period ran from the service of . .
CitedDavid T Morrison and Co Ltd (T/A Gael Home Interiors) v ICL Plastics Ltd and Others SC 30-Jul-2014
The claimant sought damages after an explosion at the defender’s nearby premises damaged its shop. The defender said that the claim was out of time, and now appealed against a decision that time had not begun to run under the 1973 Act.
Held: . .
At Outer HouseThe Inter-Vivos Trust of The Late William Strathdee Gordon v Campbell Riddle Breeze Paterson Llp SCS 25-Mar-2015
(Outer House) The trustees said they had suffered losses from the negligence of the defendant solicitors in serving incorrect notices to quit under leases. The solicitors said that the claim was time barred.
Held: After hearing evidence in a . .
CitedDunlop v McGowans HL 6-Mar-1980
The landlord of a block of flats needed vacant possession to pursue redevelopment. The respondent solicitors failed to give the necessary notice in good time, delaying the development by a year. The landlord appellant delayed five years before . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation, Professional Negligence

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.599381

Gordon and Others v Campbell Riddell Breeze Paterson Llp: SCS 8 Mar 2016

(Extra Division, Inner House) The claimant trustees appealed from rejection of their claims of professional negligence against the defendant solicitors as out of time. The parties disputed whether the limitation period ran from the service of defective notices on the trustees’ tenants.
Held: The appeal was refused. Section 11(3) of the 1973 Act postponed the start of the prescriptive period only when the damage was latent by requiring that the creditor should have actual or constructive knowledge of the occurrence of damage or expenditure, which was viewed as an objective fact. Accordingly, the prescriptive period ran from the time the trustees incurred liability for legal fees notwithstanding that they did not then know that their application to the Scottish Land Court would fail.

Judges:

Lady Paton

Citations:

[2016] ScotCS CSIH – 16, 2016 SC 548, 2016 GWD 9-178, 2016 SLT 580

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

CitedDavid T Morrison and Co Ltd (T/A Gael Home Interiors) v ICL Plastics Ltd and Others SC 30-Jul-2014
The claimant sought damages after an explosion at the defender’s nearby premises damaged its shop. The defender said that the claim was out of time, and now appealed against a decision that time had not begun to run under the 1973 Act.
Held: . .
At Outer HouseThe Inter-Vivos Trust of The Late William Strathdee Gordon v Campbell Riddle Breeze Paterson Llp SCS 25-Mar-2015
(Outer House) The trustees said they had suffered losses from the negligence of the defendant solicitors in serving incorrect notices to quit under leases. The solicitors said that the claim was time barred.
Held: After hearing evidence in a . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromGordon and Others (Trustees of The Inter Vivos Trust) v Campbell Riddell Breeze Paterson Llp SC 15-Nov-2017
The claimants appealed from rejection of their claims for losses saying that such losses had been caused by their solicitors in failing properly to identify the tenant and the relevant lease when issuing notices to quit. The solicitors argued that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation, Professional Negligence

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.562577

The Inter-Vivos Trust of The Late William Strathdee Gordon v Campbell Riddle Breeze Paterson Llp: SCS 25 Mar 2015

(Outer House) The trustees said they had suffered losses from the negligence of the defendant solicitors in serving incorrect notices to quit under leases. The solicitors said that the claim was time barred.
Held: After hearing evidence in a preliminary proof on prescription at which the parties had agreed that the averments of breach of contract and loss were to be treated as proven, Lord Jones upheld the plea of prescription. He rejected the trustees’ argument that the prescriptive period did not begin until the Scottish Land Court issued its decision (ie 24 July 2008), which, according to the trustees, was the date on which they first knew that they had suffered loss. He held that the prescriptive period began when the trustees knowingly became liable for legal fees and outlays in pursuit of vacant possession of the fields. As it was agreed that the trustees had incurred material expense in relation to the Scottish Land Court application by 17 February 2006, the five-year prescriptive period had run its course before they commenced the legal proceedings against the respondents (on 17 May 2012). Lord Jones therefore absolved the respondents from the trustees’ claims.

Judges:

Lord Jones

Citations:

[2015] ScotCS CSOH – 31

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

At Outer HouseGordon and Others v Campbell Riddell Breeze Paterson Llp SCS 8-Mar-2016
(Extra Division, Inner House) The claimant trustees appealed from rejection of their claims of professional negligence against the defendant solicitors as out of time. The parties disputed whether the limitation period ran from the service of . .
At Outer HouseGordon and Others (Trustees of The Inter Vivos Trust) v Campbell Riddell Breeze Paterson Llp SC 15-Nov-2017
The claimants appealed from rejection of their claims for losses saying that such losses had been caused by their solicitors in failing properly to identify the tenant and the relevant lease when issuing notices to quit. The solicitors argued that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Limitation

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.546782

Yew Bon Tew v Kenderaan Bas Mara: PC 7 Oct 1982

(Malaysia) In 1972 the appellants were injured by the respondent’s bus. At that time the local limitation period was 12 months. In 1974 the limitation period became three years. The appellants issued a writ in 1975. To succeed they would have to sue under the 1974 Act.
Held: The claim was time barred. The respondent’s right to rely upon entitlement to plead the twelve-month time bar constituted an accrued right, and the Act was not to be construed retrospectively depriving it of its defence unless such a construction was unavoidable, which it was not.
Apart from the provisions of the interpretation statutes, there is at common law a prima facie rule of construction that a statute should not be interpreted retrospectively so as to impair an existing right or obligation unless that result is unavoidable on the language used. A statute is retrospective if it takes away or impairs a vested right acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in regard to events already past. Whether a statute is to be construed in a retrospective sense, and if so to what extent, depends on the intention of the legislature as expressed in the wording of the statute, having regard to the normal canons of construction and to the relevant provisions of any interpretation statute.
Lord Brightman said: ‘Apart from the provisions of the interpretation statutes, there is at common law a prima facie rule of construction that a statute should not be interpreted retrospectively so as to impair an existing right or obligation unless that result is unavoidable on the language used. A statute is retrospective if it takes away or impairs a vested right acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in regard to events already past.’ As to whether a right to rely upon a statutory limitation provision of that type was a vested right he answered ‘yes’, citing Maxwell v Murphy. The respondent had acquired an ‘accrued right’ on the failure by the appellants to commence an action within the specified period. The proper approach to the construction of the 1948 Ordinance was to see whether the statute, if applied retrospectively, would impair existing rights and obligations. An accrued right to plead a time bar, which is acquired after the lapse of the statutory period, is in every sense a right, even though it arises under an Act which is procedural. It is a right which is not to be taken away by conferring on the statute a retrospective operation, unless such a construction is unavoidable.’
He concluded: ‘In the opinion of their Lordships an accrued entitlement on the part of a person to plead the lapse of a limitation period as an answer to the future institution of proceedings is just as much a ‘right’ as any other statutory or contractual provision against a future suit.’

Judges:

Lord Brightman, Lord Fraser of Tulleybelton, Lord Scarman, Kord Kwry, Lord Bridge of Harwich

Citations:

[1983] 1 AC 553, [1982] 3 All ER 833, [1982] 3 WLR 1026

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedMaxwell v Murphy 1957
Sir Owen Dixon CJ said: ‘The general rule of the common law is that a statute changing the law ought not, unless the intention appears with reasonable certainty, to be understood as applying to facts or events that have already occurred in such a . .

Cited by:

CitedNicholls v London Borough of Greenwich CA 3-Apr-2003
The claimant had been employed by the respondent, and earned a pension. She challenged legislation which appeared to operate retrospectively to reduce that pension. The respondent argued that the amount agreed to be paid exceeded the maximum . .
CitedRegina v Register of Trade Marks ex parte Interturbine Germany Gmbh Admn 22-Feb-1999
An action was begun opposing a trade mark. It was conducted under the old rules, which did not allow for an order for discovery. After the new rules came into effect, discovery was sought, but the registrar said the old rules would continue to apply . .
CitedWilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
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 . .
CitedArnold v Central Electricity Generating Board HL 22-Oct-1987
The plaintiff was widow and administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband. He had worked from April 1938 to April 1943 for a predecessor to the CEGB. He had been exposed to asbestos dust as a result of his employer’s negligence and breach of . .
CitedMcDonnell v Congregation of Christian Brothers Trustees (Formerly Irish Christian Brothers) and others HL 4-Dec-2003
In 2000, the claimant sought damages for sexual abuse from before 1951. The issue was as to whether the limitation law which applied was that as at the date of the incidents, or that which applied as at the date when he would be deemed uner the . .
CitedOxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council, Catherine Mary Robinson ChD 22-Jan-2004
Land had been registered in part as a common. The council appealed.
Held: The rights pre-existing the Act had not been lost. The presumption against retrospectively disapplying vested rights applied, and the application had properly been made. . .
CitedA 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
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 . .
CitedOdelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 20-May-2009
The appellant had applied for leave to remain as a postgraduate doctor. Before her application was determined, the rules changed. She said that her application should have been dealt with under the rules applicable at the time of her application. . .
CitedLawrence v Financial Services Commission PC 14-Dec-2009
lawrence_fscPC2009
(Jamaica) The appellant challenged a fixed penalty notice issued in respect of a financial services allegation, saying that it had been made without him having been allowed opportunity to be heard by an impartial tribunal.
Held: Actions under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Limitation

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.180540

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 actions for breach of fiduciary duty do not mean that a claim for an account of profits in respect of a breach of fiduciary duty is outside the scope of the Act altogether and is free of any period of limitation. Unless the account sought is of property subject to a trust, a claim for an account in equity will be based on legal rights. In the case of an action for an account by a principal against an agent, where the claim is based on a contractual relationship. Even if the relationship is not contractual, but is exclusively equitable, a limitation period may be applied by the court under s 36 by analogy in the light of the position before 1 July 1940. There were two different types of constructive trust in respect of which an account can be claimed in equity and to which different considerations apply on questions of limitation: ‘The first covers those cases already mentioned, where the defendant, though not expressly appointed as trustee, has assumed the duties of a trustee by a lawful transaction which was independent of and preceded the breach of trust and is not impeached by the plaintiff. The second covers those cases where the trust obligation arises as a direct consequence of the unlawful transaction which is impeached by the plaintiff.’
The court considered the nature of a constructive trust. Millett LJ said: ‘A constructive trust arises by operation of law whenever the circumstances are such that it would be unconscionable for the owner of property (usually but not necessarily the legal estate) to assert his own beneficial interest in the Property and deny the beneficial interest of another.’ There are two kinds of constructive trust: ‘A constructive trust arises by operation of law whenever the circumstances are such that it would be unconscionable for the owner of property (usually but not necessarily the legal estate) to assert his own beneficial interest in the property and deny the beneficial interest of another. In the first class of case . . the constructive trustee really is a trustee. He does not receive the trust property in his own right but by a transaction by which both parties intend to create a trust from the outset and which is not impugned by the plaintiff. His possession of the property is coloured from the first by the trust and confidence by means of which he obtained it, and his subsequent appropriation of the property to his own use is a breach of that trust. Well-known examples of such a constructive trust are McCormick v Grogan (1869) LR 4 HL (a case of a secret trust) and Rochefoucald v Boustead[1897] 1 Ch 196 (where the defendant agreed to buy property for the plaintiff but the trust was imperfectly recorded). Pallant v Morgan [1952] 2 All ER 951, [1953] Ch 43 (where the defendant sought to keep for himself property which the plaintiff trusted him to buy for both parties) is another. In these cases the plaintiff does not impugn the transaction by which the defendant obtained control of the property. He alleges that the circumstances in which the defendant obtained control make it unconscionable for him thereafter to assert a beneficial interest in the Property.
The second class of case is different. It arises when the defendant is implicated in a fraud. Equity has always given relief against fraud by making any person sufficiently implicated in the fraud accountable in equity. In such a case he is traditionally though I think unfortunately described as a constructive trustee and said to be ‘liable to account as constructive trustee’. Such a person is not in fact a trustee at all, even though he may be liable to account as if he were. He never assumes the position of a trustee, and if he receives the trust property at all it is adversely to the plaintiff by an unlawful transaction which is impugned by the plaintiff. In such a case the expressions ‘constructive trust’ and ‘constructive trustee’ are misleading, for there is no trust and usually no possibility of a proprietary remedy; they are ‘nothing more than a formula for equitable relief’: Selangor United Rubber Estates Ltd v Cradock (No 3) [1968] 2 All ER 1073 at 1097, [1968] 1 WLR 1555 at 1582 per Ungoed-Thomas J. ‘
Millett LJ considered what was due diligence when looking at the discovery of a fraud for limitation: ‘The question is not whether the claimants should have discovered the fraud sooner; but whether they could with reasonable diligence have done so. The burden of proof is on them. They must establish that they could not have discovered the fraud without exceptional measures which they could not reasonably have been expected to take . . In the course of argument May LJ observed that reasonable diligence must be measured against some standard, but that the six-year limitation period did not provide the relevant standard. He suggested that the test was how a person carrying on a business of the relevant kind would act if he had adequate but not unlimited staff and resources and was motivated by a reasonable but not excessive sense of urgency. I respectfully agree.’

Judges:

Millett LJ, Pill LJ, May LJ

Citations:

Times 07-Aug-1998, Gazette 29-Jul-1998, Gazette 16-Sep-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1187, [1999] 1 All ER 400, [1998] EWCA Civ 1249

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 20 35(3) 35(4) 35(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedMara v Browne CA 17-Dec-1895
In a marriage settlement, the first defendant, a solicitor, advised the persons who were acting as trustees, though not yet formally appointed as such. He suggested a series improper of investments for the trust funds. The money was to be lent on . .
CitedSelangor United Rubber Estates Ltd v Cradock (No 3) ChD 1968
The expressions ‘constructive trust’ and ‘constructive trustee’ are ‘nothing more than a formula for equitable relief. It is the actual control of assets belonging beneficially to a company which causes the law to treat directors as analogous to . .
CitedMcCormick v Grogan HL 23-Apr-1869
C made a will leaving his property to G, and appointed him executor. When about to die C sent for G and in a private interview told him of the will, and G asked whether that was right. C said that he would not have it otherwise. C then told G where . .
CitedRochefoucald v Boustead CA 12-Dec-1896
A property was purchased by the defendant which the court found to have been on the basis as trustee for the plaintiff. The defendant resisted the plaintiff’s claim on the ground of, inter alia, absence of writing.
Held: This defence was . .
CitedPallant v Morgan ChD 1952
The agents of two neighbouring landowners orally agreed in the auction room that the plaintiff’s agent would refrain from bidding at auction and that the defendant, if his agent’s bid was successful, would divide the land according to an agreed . .

Cited by:

QuestionedBirmingham Midshires Building Society v Infields (A Firm) TCC 20-May-1999
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. . .
CitedDEG-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 . .
CitedThe Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Goldberg, Mcavoy ChD 26-Nov-2003
The Secretary of State sought a disqualification order. The director argued that one shoul not be made in the absence of some breach of legal duty, some dishonesty should be shown.
Held: The answer was a mixture of fact and law. A breach of . .
CitedDubai 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 . .
CitedBanner Homes Group Plc v Luff Developments and Another CA 10-Feb-2000
Competing building companies agreed not to bid against each other for the purchase of land. One proceeded and the other asserted that the land was then held on trust for the two parties as a joint venture.
Held: Although there was no formal . .
CitedThe Law Society v Sephton and Co and others CA 13-Dec-2004
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 . .
CitedTaylor Aston Ltd v AON Ltd ComC 26-Jul-2005
The parties entered into a contract to support attempts to provide insurance in Khazakstan. The defendants argued limitation, the claimants argued for concealment.
Held: Deliberate concealment for limitation purposes meant just that. That had . .
CitedTaylor Aston Ltd v AON Ltd ComC 26-Jul-2005
The parties entered into a contract to support attempts to provide insurance in Khazakstan. The defendants argued limitation, the claimants argued for concealment.
Held: Deliberate concealment for limitation purposes meant just that. That had . .
CitedIslamic Republic of Pakistan v Zardari and others ComC 6-Oct-2006
The claimant alleged that the defendants had funded the purchase of various properties by secret and unlawful commissions taken by them whilst in power in Pakistan. They sought to recover the proceeds. They now sought permission to serve proceedings . .
CitedDowson and Others v Northumbria Police QBD 30-Apr-2009
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 . .
CitedNational Trust for Places of Historic Interest v Birden ChD 31-Jul-2009
The parties had entered into an old-form share farm agreement in 1994. The tenant later became a farm business tenant on other land. The claimant sought a share of the Single Payment Scheme calculated with reference to the period in which the . .
CitedWilliams v Central Bank of Nigeria QBD 8-Apr-2011
The claimant had been defrauded by a customer of the defendant bank. He brought a claim against the bank, saying that they knew or ought to have known of the fraudster’s activities, and were liable. The Bank denied that the UK courts had . .
CitedWilliams v Central Bank of Nigeria QBD 24-Jan-2012
The claimant asserted involvement by the defendant bank in a fraud perpetrated against him. Jurisdiction had already been admitted for one trust , and now the claimant sought to add two further claims.
Held: ‘None of the gateways to English . .
CitedWilliams 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 . .
CitedStocker v Stocker QBD 10-Jun-2015
The claimant alleged defamation by his former wife in a post on facebook. The posting and associatedeEmails were said falsely to have accused him of serious abuse, and that the accusations had undermined his relationship with his new partner.
CitedHalton International Inc Another v Guernroy Ltd CA 27-Jun-2006
The parties had been involved in investing in an airline to secure its future, but it was now said that one party had broken the shareholders’ or voting agreement in not allowing further investments on a pari passu basis. The defendants argued that . .
CitedBoyse (International) Ltd v Natwest Markets Plc and Another ChD 27-May-2020
Claim alleging misselling of interest rate hedging products. The court considered the defendants strike out application, and applications for leave to amend pleadings.
Held: it will normally be appropriate for summary judgment to be pursued on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Professional Negligence, Trusts

Leading Case

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.144666

Dunlop v McGowans: HL 6 Mar 1980

The landlord of a block of flats needed vacant possession to pursue redevelopment. The respondent solicitors failed to give the necessary notice in good time, delaying the development by a year. The landlord appellant delayed five years before claiming damages, and now appealed against denial of his claim, arguing that section 11 produced in the case of this one breach of duty a series of ‘appropriate dates’ under section 6, each relating only to the ‘pecuniary loss’ which could be demonstrated to have been suffered on or before that date. This was contrasted with only ‘potential loss,’ which would not serve to produce a terminus a quo as an appropriate date, albeit it could be made the subject of proceedings and a claim, if the pursuer thought fit, before it ripened into a ‘pecuniary loss.’ Although the relevant time could elapse as to some part of the loss or damage suffered, it did not follow that it would have elapsed as to other parts: and in this it is right to say that he was not contending that more than one action could be brought for the same breach of duty.
Held: The argument, and the appeal failed. The claimed distinction could not be established: ‘All is a question of quantification of the harm done by the breach of duty. The loss damage and injury suffered by the pursuer was that arising from the fact that he was unable to obtain vacant possession at Whitsun 1971 and pursue his plans for development, and it occurred then.’

Judges:

Lord Keith of Kinkel, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Edmund-Davies, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton

Citations:

[1980] UKHL 17, 1980 SC (HL) 73, 1980 SLT 129

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 11

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

CitedDavid T Morrison and Co Ltd (T/A Gael Home Interiors) v ICL Plastics Ltd and Another SCS 14-Mar-2013
Extra Division – Inner House – An explosion at the defenders’ neighbouring premises had damaged those of the pursuer. The defenders now appealed against a finding that the claim was out of time calculated from the time when it had sufficient . .
CitedDavid T Morrison and Co Ltd (T/A Gael Home Interiors) v ICL Plastics Ltd and Others SC 30-Jul-2014
The claimant sought damages after an explosion at the defender’s nearby premises damaged its shop. The defender said that the claim was out of time, and now appealed against a decision that time had not begun to run under the 1973 Act.
Held: . .
CitedGordon and Others (Trustees of The Inter Vivos Trust) v Campbell Riddell Breeze Paterson Llp SC 15-Nov-2017
The claimants appealed from rejection of their claims for losses saying that such losses had been caused by their solicitors in failing properly to identify the tenant and the relevant lease when issuing notices to quit. The solicitors argued that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.279745

Wright v Williams: 1836

The plaintiff landowner had a copper mine. The water from the mine, which had been contaminated with metallic substances discharged over a neighbour’s land. He sought to establish a right to do so by prescription. The right was claimed over land subject to a tenancy for life.
Held: Such a claim was in the nature of a claim to a water course. The claim should be pleaded as ‘for the full period of forty years next before the commencement of the suit’ . It was no full answer to say that the servient land was subject to a tenancy for life, siince though the period of the tenancy for life was to be excluded, that exclusion was conditional upon the reversioner making objection within three years after the end of the tenancy for life.

Citations:

[1836] 1 M and W 77, [1836] 1 Gale 410, [1836] Tyr and Gr 375, [1836] 150 ER 353

Statutes:

Prescription Act 1832

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Limitation

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.223973

Berliner Industriebank Aktiengesellschaft v Jost: 1971

The distinction ‘between the right to sue on a judgment (which is a substantive right) and the right to issue execution under it (which is a procedural right or remedy) has always been recognised in the law of limitation.’

Judges:

Brandon J

Citations:

[1971] 1 QB 278

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRidgeway Motors (Isleworth) Ltd v Alts Ltd CA 10-Feb-2005
The company appelaed a refusal of the judge to strike out a winding up petition. They said the petition was based upon a judgment which was now time barred. The petitioner replied that such a petition was not an action under the section.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.223040

Wrightson v AOC International Limited: 20 Oct 1995

A preliminary proof was allowed before answer on the matters raised by the parties under section 19A as he considered that there should be an inquiry into specific material facts on which the parties were not agreed. These related to the pursuer’s prospects of success against his former English solicitors or counsel and his former Scottish solicitors, as well as the extent to which he would suffer inconvenience and delay in prosecuting an action against any of his previous advisers, even if he did have good prospects of success.

Judges:

Lord Gill

Citations:

20 October 1995, unreported

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDavid Lannigan v Glasgow City Council OHCS 12-Aug-2004
The pursuer said the teachers employed by the defendant had failed to identify that was dyslexic, leading him to suffer damage. The defenders said the claim was time barred, which the pursuer admitted, but then said that the claim ought to go ahead . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Limitation

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.200283

Roberts v Crown Estate Commissioners: CA 20 Feb 2008

The commissioners sought to claim title to a foreshore by adverse possession. The claimant asserted that he had acquired title in his capacity of Lord Marcher of Magor which had owned the bed of the estuary since the Norman Conquest, and that the Crown could not acquire title by adverse possession, by a wrong against a subject. The Crown argued that section 37 applied the law equally to actions by or against the Crown.
Held: The claim failed. ‘Quite apart from the express provision putting the Crown on the same footing as its subjects in matters of limitation, the general purpose and policy of setting time limits on actions for the recovery of land by the paper title owner (the protection of long continued possession of land in the public interest of certainty and stability, and the protection of defendants against the injustice of stale claims, which become more difficult to rebut with the loss of evidence in the passage of time) apply to land in the possession of the Crown as much as they apply in the case of land in the possession of another subject. ‘ and ‘if contrary to my opinion, there ever was a constitutional principle or rule limiting the right of the Crown to acquire title to land by adverse possession, it ceased to exist by reason of the combined effect of the 1947 Act and the 1939 Act. As against another subject, a subject can obtain adverse possession of land having a root in an unlawful entry into possession. The same law that applies between subjects applies as between the Crown and its subjects. ‘

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 98, [2008] 2 P and CR 1, [2008] 8 EG 157, [2008] Ch 439, [2008] 2 WLR 1111, [2008] 1 EGLR 129, [2008] 1 WLR 1111, [2008] NPC 21

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 37(1), Crown Proceedings Act 1947 2(1)(a), Magna Carta 29

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedJ 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 . .
CitedCase of the Duchy of Lancaster 1561
Queen Elizabeth I wished to know whether a lease granted by Edward VI of some land within the Duchy while under the age of 21 (‘during his nonage’) was voidable.
Held: It was not voidable. The king’s natural body was inseparable from his body . .
CitedAttorney-General v Tomline (No 3) ChD 1877
For more than 20 years the Crown had been in possession of land forming part of a manor in Suffolk owned in fee simple by Colonel Tomline, who then entered the land in order to dig out mineral material (coprolites-fossilised dinosaur dung). The . .
CitedMcDonnell v McKinty 1847
Discontinuance of possession of land can occur where the paper title owner having abandoned possession, actual possession is taken by another person in whose favour or for whose protection the Limitation Act could operate. . .
CitedFriend v Duke of Richmond 1667
Two subjects brought action for ejectment. The defendant took the point that the claimant could not sue in ejectment. It was necessary to allege entry by a tenant. There could not be an entry, as the Crown had already obtained a judgment based on an . .
CitedGoodman v Mayor of Saltash HL 1882
A gift was made of a right to fish to the freemen of the Borough of Saltash.
Held: The gift was as valid as a charitable gift as would be a gift to the inhabitants of the locality in general. When long and continuous enjoyment is established, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Constitutional, Limitation

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.264635

Skerratt v Linfax Ltd (T/A Go Karting for Fun): CA 6 May 2003

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 695

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 33(3)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedCoad v Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority CA 17-Jul-1996
A nurse suffered a back injury in 1983 in the course of her employment. She left the employment of the health authority in either 1990 or 1991. The judge had accepted her evidence that she did not know that she had a right of action against her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.182352

The Insight Group Ltd and Another v Kingston Smith (A Firm): QBD 18 Dec 2012

If a claim is mistakenly brought against an LLP which should have been brought against the former partnership, and before the error is recognised the limitation period for starting a new action has expired, can the error be corrected by substituting the former partnership for the LLP as the defendant to the claim? That is the principal question raised by this appeal.

Judges:

Leggatt J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 3644 (QB), [2013] 3 All ER 518, [2013] 1 CLC 90, [2014] 1 WLR 1448, [2013] PNLR 13

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Limitation, Litigation Practice, Company, Legal Professions

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.467167

Stingel v Clark: 20 Jul 2006

Asutlii (High Court of Australia) Limitation of Actions – Appellant alleged respondent had raped and assaulted her in 1971 – Appellant alleged that she suffered post-traumatic stress disorder of delayed onset in 2000 and became aware of the connection between this disorder and the rapes and assaults in the same year – Proceedings were commenced for trespass to the person in 2002 by which time the general limitation period of six years for commencing actions in tort stipulated in s 5(1)(a) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) (‘the Act’) had expired – Whether s 5(1A) of the Act applied to extend the limitation period from the date she first knew of those injuries and their causal connection – Whether a trespass to the person is an action for a ‘breach of duty’ – Whether the injury alleged is a ‘disease or disorder contracted’.

Citations:

(2006) 80 ALJR 1339, (2006) 228 ALR 229, [2006] HCA 37

Links:

Austlii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Citing:

CitedStubbings v Webb and Another HL 10-Feb-1993
Sexual Assault is not an Act of Negligence
In claims for damages for child abuse at a children’s home made out of the six year time limit time were effectively time barred, with no discretion for the court to extend that limit. The damage occurred at the time when the child left the home. A . .

Cited by:

CitedA v Hoare HL 30-Jan-2008
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Torts – Other

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.270276

St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council v Barnes: CA 25 Oct 2006

The claimant had delivered his claim form to the court, but it was not processed until after the limitation period had expired. The defendant appealed a finding that the claimant had brought the cliam within the necessary time.
Held: The claim was brought within the necessary time limit. ‘the courts have given claimants the full period for bringing proceedings afforded by the Limitation Acts. Provided the claimant takes any necessary step required to enable the proceedings to be started he does not take the risk that, for example, the court may be closed or will not process his claim properly. It seems to me that paragraph 5.1 of the Practice Direction reflects this understanding. ‘

Judges:

Tuckey LJ, Arden LJ, Lloyd LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1372, Times 17-Nov-2006, [2007] 3 All ER 525, [2007] 1 WLR 879

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 11(3), Civil Procedure Rules 7.2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedPritam Kaur v S Russell and Sons Ltd CA 2-Jun-1972
The plaintiff sought damages following the death of her husband when working for the defendant. The limitation period expired on Saturday 5 September 1970. The writ was issued on the Monday following.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The writ was . .
CitedRiniker v University College London CA 31-Mar-1999
The writ office of the High Court unjustifiably rejected a writ which the plaintiff asked to be issued and did not issue it until the limitation period had expired. The court held that it had inherent jurisdiction to direct that the writ should be . .
CitedSalford City Council v Garner CA 27-Feb-2004
The tenancy had been an introductory tenancy. The council sought to terminate the tenancy, delivering the papers to the court before the anniversary.
Held: The proceedings were not begun under the section until the court issued the claim form. . .
CitedVan Aken v Camden London Borough Council CA 11-Oct-2002
The appellant sought to appeal a review of his application for housing. The appeal was lodged at court after close of business on the last day of the statutory time limit. The court decided it was delivered out of time.
Held: The Act required . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.245587

Khan v National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and Another: CA 7 Jun 2001

The preliminary issue had raised the question whether the appellant’s claim was statute barred. In this appeal the appellant seeks an order that the appeal be allowed and that her claim be allowed to proceed to trial.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 959

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Limitation

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.201152

Burke v Ashe Construction Ltd: CA 23 May 2003

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Potter Lady Justice Arden

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 717

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 833

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Leave grantedBurke v Ashe Construction Ltd CA 16-Dec-2002
Renewed application for leave to appeal – granted. . .
CitedCoad v Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority CA 17-Jul-1996
A nurse suffered a back injury in 1983 in the course of her employment. She left the employment of the health authority in either 1990 or 1991. The judge had accepted her evidence that she did not know that she had a right of action against her . .

Cited by:

Full AppealBurke v Ashe Construction Ltd CA 16-Dec-2002
Renewed application for leave to appeal – granted. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.183714