KR and others v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd and Another: CA 10 Jun 2003

The court considered an extension of the time for claiming damages for personal injuries after the claimants said they had been sexually abused as children in the care of the defendants.
Held: The test to be applied under section 14(2) was ‘partly subjective’and ‘section 14(2) was designed principally to provide for cases of late diagnosis of physical diseases, such asbestosis or byssinosis, the deadly development of which may be unknown until their symptoms eventually appear.’ The section ‘does not fit so readily the circumstances of abused children who, because of their immaturity and vulnerable position might never consider and seek advice about suing their abusers’. In such a case, the trial judge, when considering the applicability of section 14(2), must take into account the claimant’s ‘individual history and circumstances, the nature severity and duration of the abuse, the period of time when it occurred and its physical and/or mental effects evident to the claimant’. The judge would then have ‘to relate them all to the question whether the claimant, given those and any other relevant circumstances, would have considered the injury . . sufficiently serious to institute proceedings against a solvent compliant defendant’.

Judges:

Auld LJ

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 783, [2003] QB 1441, [2003] CPLR 415

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930 1, Limitation Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoRowlands and others v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd and Royal and Sun Alliance Plc CA 24-Mar-2003
. .
See AlsoDK, KR, CGE, DHM, PS, RM, DJ, GOM v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd (In Liquidation) and Royal and Sun Alliance PLC CA 22-May-2003
. .
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 . .
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 . .

Cited by:

CitedKR and others v Royal and Sun Alliance Plc CA 3-Nov-2006
The insurer appealed findings of liability under the 1930 Act. Claims had been made for damages for child abuse in a residential home, whom they insured. The home had become insolvent, and the claimants had pursued the insurer.
Held: The . .
CitedMcCoubrey v Ministry of Defence CA 24-Jan-2007
The defendant appealed a decision allowing a claim to proceed more than ten years after it had been suffered. The claimant’s hearing had been damaged after an officer threw a thunderflash into his trench on an exercise.
Held: The defendant’s . .
CriticisedA 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 . .
DisapprovedBowden 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: . .
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, Insurance

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.184075

George Legge and Son Ltd v Wenlock Corporation: HL 1938

The question was whether the status of a natural stream could be changed to that of a sewer by the unlawful discharge for a long period of sewage into the stream. The claimant asserted that a right by way of an easement could be acquired despite the fact that that act involved continued polluting of a river.
Held: There is no case in the books in which repeated violation of the express terms of a modern statute passed in the public interest has been held to confer rights on the wrongdoer. Such a contention would be quite untenable. ‘it is sought to prove that what was in law a protected stream has become in law an unprotected sewer simply by reason of infringements of the law designed for its protection. Now that is what your Lordships’ House in effect held in the Airdrie case to be a legal impossibility.’
Lord MacMillan said that a water channel may be a sewer though it may carry no sewage and its contents consist solely of innocuous surface drainage. Since any natural stream or watercourse which is still open will almost always contain some surface water, at any rate in or after wet weather, the fact that a flow of water does contain such surface water cannot show that it is a sewer, and cannot transform what was once a watercourse into a sewer.

Judges:

Lord Maugham, Lord Macmillan, Lord Atkin, Lord Roche

Citations:

[1938] AC 204

Statutes:

River Pollution Prevention Act 1876

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedAirdrie Magistrates v Lanark County Council 1910
Lord Loreburn LC said: ‘But what the appellants say is this: Permit us to prove that these burns are sewers, and if we can prove that they are sewers, surely it cannot be an offence to pour sewage matter into the sewers. My Lords, that is merely . .

Cited by:

CitedNeaverson v Peterborough Rural District Council ChD 1902
The 1812 Act provided for the draining, enclosing and improving of a fen which was common land. Under the Act the grass growing on various roadways was vested in the surveyor of highways, who had power to let it for the pasturage of ‘sound and . .
FollowedHanning 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 . .
CitedTinsley v Milligan CA 1992
The court considered the defence of illegal user to a claim to have established an easement by prescription: ‘These authorities seem to me to establish that when applying the ‘ex turpi causa’ maxim in a case in which a defence of illegality has been . .
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 . .
CitedRaglan Housing Association Ltd v Southampton City Council and Southern Water Services Ltd CA 30-Jul-2007
The claimant sought damages in nuisance from the defendants saying that a channel for which they were responsible flooded causing damage. The defendant appealed a finding that the culvert had become a sewer. It had been a natural stream, but had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.179842

Anthony McCarroll v Statham Gill Davies (A Firm): CA 1 Apr 2003

The claimant said his solicitors had failed to protect his interests in a partnership agreement into which he subsequently entered. The agreement contained less favourable terms than those which should have been agreed and he claimed damages accordingly. Alternatively he claimed damages on the basis that the solicitors’ breach of duty had caused him to lose the chance of securing an agreement on more favourable terms. He contended that the loss was only suffered when he ceased to be a member of the partnership.
Held: His cause of action accrued when he entered into the partnership agreement. That was the point in time when he suffered an actual loss.

Judges:

Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice Latham, Mr Justice Morland

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 425, [2003] Lloyd’s Rep PN 167, [2003] PNLR 25

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Limitation, Professional Negligence

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.180460

London 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.
Held: It was arguable that a mandatory injunction should not have been granted and leave was given.

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 1239

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedNorwich and Peterborough Building Society v Steed CA 1991
The four factors to be taken into account when considering an application to extend the time for leave to appeal are (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the chances of the appeal succeeding if an extension of time is . .

Cited by:

Application for leaveLondon 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.144718

Pritam Kaur v S Russell and Sons Ltd: QBD 1 Jun 1972

The plaintiff sought damages following the death of her husband when working for the defendants. He had died on 5 September 1967 but the writ was not issued until Monday 7 September 1970. The applicable limitation period was 3 years, which the defendants relied upon. The plaintiff argued that since the writ could not be issued when the court office was closed, it was permissible to issue on the next day upon which the court was open.
Held: Willis J said: ‘In the absence of direct authority that the plaintiff under the statute of limitations should not be treated in a similar way to the tenant in Hodgson’s case, that the principles of law applicable to him are those set out in the judgment of Russell LJ in that in the absence of any days of grace or extenuating rule this action is barred.’

Judges:

Willis J

Citations:

[1972] 1 All ER 306, [1973] 1 QB 336, [1973] 2 WLR 147

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHodgson v Armstrong CA 1967
Sellers LJ considered the application of court rules requiring notices to be given within a certain number of days: ‘Does the court need in each statute requiring notices to be given to a court – of which there are so many – an express stipulation . .
CitedRadcliffe v Bartholomew 1892
The day on which an accident happened should be excluded from calculation for limitation purposes. . .
CitedMarren v Dawson Bentley and Co Ltd 1961
Compensation was sought for injuries received in the course of employment.
Held: The limitation period was to be calculated to have started on the day after the occurrence which founded the claim, the day itself being excluded from the . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromPritam 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 . .
CitedGwynedd County Council v Grunshaw CA 22-Jul-1999
The plaintiff lived in Lincolnshire, but owned a house in Gwynnedd. She sought to serve a notice in her local County Court, appealing from an order for its demolition, but the manager of that Court refused to accept it saying that it should have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.231056

Collins v Brebner: CA 19 Jun 1997

The defendant solicitor appealed refusal of an order to strike out the claim. The claimant alleged breach of trust. The claimant asserted a fraudulent witholding of information to suggest that any breach of trust had happened. The defendant said that the claimant had sufficient knowledge independent of any concealment to begin the limitation period.
Held: If the facts asserted were established, a claim might be made out. The draconian powers of the court to strike out a claim should not be used, and the appeal failed.

Judges:

Saville LJ, Thorpe LJ, Judge LJ

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1909

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 32(1)(a) 32(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedC v Mirror Group Newspapers and Others CA 21-Jun-1996
Husband and wife were involved in a custody dispute. The father made serious but false allegations to the press. She now claimed in defamation, but he relied upon limitation. She said the facts had only become known to her much later.
Held: . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.142305

Gregoire v GP Putnam’s Sons: 1948

(New York Court of Appeals) A book had been placed on sale in 1941, but was still being reprinted and sold in 1946.
Held: The rule in Duke of Brunswick v Harmer was formulated ‘in an era which long antedated the modern process of mass publication’ and was therefore not suited to modern conditions. The limitation period started to run in 1941, when the book was first put on sale. The court pointed out that ‘Under [the rule in Duke of Brunswick v Harmer] the Statute of Limitation would never expire so long as a copy of such book remained in stock and is made by the publisher the subject of a sale or inspection by the public. Such a rule would thwart the purpose of the legislature.’

Citations:

(1948) 81 NE2d 45

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

OutmodedDuke of Brunswick v Harmer QBD 2-Nov-1849
On 19 September 1830 an article was published in the Weekly Dispatch. The limitation period for libel was six years. The article defamed the Duke of Brunswick. Seventeen years after its publication an agent of the Duke purchased a back number . .

Cited by:

CitedTimes Newspapers Ltd (Nos. 1 And 2) v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Mar-2009
The applicant alleged that the rule under United Kingdom law whereby each time material is downloaded from the Internet a new cause of action in libel proceedings accrued (‘the Internet publication rule’) constituted an unjustifiable and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Defamation, Limitation

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.317947

Firth v State of New York: 2 Jul 2002

(New York Court of Appeals) A report published at a press conference on 16 December 1996 was placed on the internet the same day. A claim was filed over a year later.
Held: The limitation period started when the report was first uploaded onto the website and did not begin anew each time the website version of the report was accessed by a user: ‘The policies impelling the original adoption of the single publication rule support its application to the posting of . . the report . . on the website . . These policies are even more cogent when considered in connection with the exponential growth of the instantaneous, worldwide ability to communicate through the Internet . . Thus a multiple publication rule would implicate an even greater potential for endless retriggering of the statute of limitations, multiplicity of suits and harassment of defendants. Inevitably, there would be a serious inhibitory effect on the open, pervasive dissemination of information and ideas over the Internet which is, of course, its greatest beneficial promise.’

Citations:

(2002) NY int 88

Links:

Cornell

Jurisdiction:

United States

Cited by:

CitedTimes Newspapers Ltd (Nos. 1 And 2) v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Mar-2009
The applicant alleged that the rule under United Kingdom law whereby each time material is downloaded from the Internet a new cause of action in libel proceedings accrued (‘the Internet publication rule’) constituted an unjustifiable and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Defamation, Limitation

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.317948

Bennett 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 was an abuse of process.
Held: The decision in Ridgeway after close of oral argument on the original trial did not affect the question on whether new proceedings amounted to an abuse of process. It was not an abuse to commence proceedings based upon an earlier judgment. Though the second set of proceedings might be unnecessary, they were not an abuse.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Scott Baker

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 988, Times 04-Aug-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 . .
CitedED and F Man (Sugar) v Haryanto CA 17-Jul-1996
An action may be brought on a judgment to enforce it, if it is still within the relevant limitation period: ‘Suing on a judgment, at all events for the first time, cannot be said to defeat legislative policy. That is plain from the very language of . .
CitedRe 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 . .

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.

Banking, Limitation

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.199479

Henderson v Temple Pier Company Limited: CA 23 Apr 1998

The plaintiff suffered injury walking a gangway onto a moored ship. Her solicitors failed to identify the owner of the ship, misspelling the name and failing to search in the General Register of Shipping and Seamen. The eventual claim was made outside the basic limitation period. Was the plaintiff fixed with knowledge under section 14(3)(b)?
Held: A plaintiff consulting solicitors on a personal injury claim was fixed with the knowledge which they in turn could have acquired as experts, and accordingly the limitation period had begun and later expired. The concept of who was an expert is not limited to expert witnesses. The solicitors were the people she turned to as ‘much more seasoned warriors’ for this kind of matter.

Judges:

Lord Justice Beldam, Mrs Justice Bracewell

Citations:

Gazette 20-May-1998, Times 02-May-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 690, [1998] 3 All ER 324, [1998] 1 WLR 1540

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 14(3)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedPowell v National Coal Board CA 28-May-1986
Limitation operates as a defence, and therefore it is for he who sets it up to establish it, and prove that the claim was time barred. Once the initial limitation period had elapsed, it was for the plaintiff to assert that the date of knowledge . .
CitedNash v Eli Lilly and Co QBD 1991
The court discussed the relevance of knowledge obtainable by the plaintiff’s solicitor for limitation purposes.
Held: Hidden J said ‘My conclusion is therefore that there is no binding authority on whether facts ascertainable by a plaintiff . .
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 . .
CitedSemtex Ltd v Gladstone 1954
The court considered the liability of the master in a case of master and servant, a case of pure vicarious liability and a case in which the sole cause of the injuries was the negligence of the servant. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Personal Injury

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.144168

O’Driscoll v Dudley Health Authority: CA 30 Apr 1998

The plaintiff sought damages for the negligence of the respondent in her care at birth. Years later the family concluded that her condition was a result of negligence. They waited until she was 21, when they mistakenly believed that she became an adult, and made a claim.
Held: The defendant’s appeal succeeded. The court had applied the more stringent test of proof of causation and fault instead of the less rigorous test of attributability as required by the statute. Under that test, the plaintiff was fixed with knowledge at a time such that her claim was now out of time.

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Otton, Sir Christopher Slade

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 747, [1998] Lloyds Law Reports: Medical 210

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 11 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedDavis v Ministry of Defence CA 26-Jul-1985
May LJ said: ‘Knowledge’ is an ordinary English word with a clear meaning to which one must give full effect; ‘reasonable belief’ or ‘suspicion’ is not enough. The relevant question merits repetition – ‘when did the appellant first know that his . .
AppliedHalford v Brookes CA 1991
The plaintiff, the mother and administratrix of the estate of a 16 year old girl, alleged that her daughter had been murdered by one or both of the Defendants. The claim was for damages for battery. Rougier J at first instance had decided that: . .
CitedBroadley and Guy v Chapman and Co CA 26-Jul-1993
The limitation period starts when the plaintiff realizes that her injury may have been caused by the failure of the medical practitioner. ‘Attributable to’ means ‘capable of being attributed to’ and not ’caused by’. ‘Act or omission’ does not equate . .
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 . .
CitedSpargo v North Essex District Health Authority QBD 1996
A plaintiff’s knowledge that her injury could be attributed to hypoxia, is not knowledge that the injury is attributable to the act or omission alleged to constitute negligence as might be pleaded in a statement of claim and no ordinary plaintiff . .
AppliedSpargo 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 . .
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 . .
CitedForbes v Wandsworth Health Authority CA 21-Mar-1996
The plaintiff had a history of circulatory problems in his legs. He underwent surgery losing his leg. The question was when he should have sought advice as to why an attempted by-pass operation had resulted in one leg having to be amputated. He . .

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

Professional Negligence, Limitation

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.144225

Kapeller v Rondalia Versekeringskorporasie van Suid-Afrika Bpk: 1964

(South Africa) A clear admission by an insurer of liability in the course of without prejudice negotiations about quantum was sufficient to restart the limitation period.

Citations:

1964 (4) SA 722 (T)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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.

Litigation Practice, Limitation

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.243131

Good Challenger Navegante S A v Metalexportimport SA: CA 24 Nov 2003

The claimant sought to enforce an arbitration award made in 1983. Time might otherwise have expired, but the claimants relied on a fax which they said was an acknowledgement of the debt, and also upon a finding in a Romanian court which created an issue estoppel.
Held: A typed signature on a fax was capable of being an acknowledgement since section 30 derived from the 1677 Act which would have accepted such. ‘The crucial point here is that Navlomar’s typed signature appeared on the telex in circumstances in which it is evident that it was put on with Navlomar’s authority’ and ‘to establish an issue estoppel four conditions must be satisfied (1) the judgment must be given by a foreign court of competent jurisdiction; (2) the judgment must be final and conclusive and on the merits; (3) there must be identity of parties; and (4) there must be identity of subject matter, which means that the issue decided by the foreign court must be the same as that arising in the English proceedings.’ The issue had not been a necessary part of the Romanian decision (under 2 above), and therefore no issue estoppel arose.
When an ex parte application for leave was made under s.26, that was an action brought for the purposes of s.7 of the Limitation Act 1980; that was because such an application was an alternative to proceeding by way of writ or originating summons.

Judges:

Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Mantell Mr Justice Rimer

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1668, Times 27-Nov-2003, Gazette 15-Jan-2004, [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 67

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 30

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedAgromet Motoimport Ltd v Maulden Engineering Co (Beds) Ltd 1985
Time begins to run on the collection of an arbitration award, not from the date upon which the award is made or published, but from the date when the paying party is in breach of its implied obligation to pay the award. . .
CitedSchneider v Norris 1814
The name of a seller was printed on a bill of parcels but he in turn wrote on the contract the name of the purchaser.
Held: The seller had adopted the writing of his own name and a signature within the Statute of Frauds. The essential . .
CitedThe Anemone 1987
Owners wished to let their vessel on time charter to Afram Line Limited but were unwilling to do so without a guarantee. The negotiations were conducted by Centre Shipping on behalf of owners and Dipgrove Holdings on behalf of charterers. It was . .
CitedDecouvreur v Jordan CA 1987
The essential characteristics of a signature are that it indicates recognition and approval of the contents of a document.
Nourse LJ said: ‘Any writing by the party to be charged by which he identifies himself or by which he can be identified . .
CitedCarl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner and Keeler Ltd (No 2) HL 1966
An agency had to be proved in a search to identify an entity which the law recognised (a) existed and (b) was legally responsible for the acts in issue in the proceedings. The House was asked whether the fact that an issue had already been . .
CitedThe Sennar (No 2) HL 1985
The Henderson v Henderson principle should only be applied where it is clear (i) that the decision or determination relied on was made by a foreign court of competent jurisdiction and (ii) the decision upon the issue later sought to be raised is a . .
CitedDesert Sun Loan Corporation v Hill CA 21-Feb-1996
A defence of Issue Estoppel was not available where the issue which was claimed to have been decided had been made under an unclear foreign procedure. It was also essential that the issue in respect of which an estoppel was now asserted had been a . .
CitedGodard v Gray 1870
A judgment in personam of a foreign court of competent jurisdiction cannot be questioned or impeached by the parties on the merits when recognition or enforcement of the judgment is sought in England, notwithstanding that it may have been wrong . .
CitedArnold v National Westminster Bank Plc HL 1991
Tenants invited the court to construe the terms of a rent review provision in the sub-underlease under which they held premises. The provision had been construed in a sense adverse to them in earlier proceedings before Walton J, but they had been . .
CitedRegina v Inhabitants of the Township of Hartington Middle Quarter 22-Feb-1855
Coleridge J said: ‘The question then is, whether the former judgment concludes, not merely as to the point actually decided, but as to a matter which it was necessary to decide, and which was actually decided, as the groundwork of the decision . .
CitedPenn-Texas Corporation v Murat Anstalt (No 2) CA 1964
The court considered a claim for an issue estoppel arising from a foreign judgment: ‘In my opinion a previous judgment between the same parties is only conclusive on matters which are conclusive and necessary to the decision. It is not conclusive on . .
CitedThoday v Thoday CA 1964
The court discussed the difference between issue estoppel, and action estoppel: ‘The particular type of estoppel relied upon by the husband is estoppel per rem judicatam. This is a generic term which in modern law includes two species. The first . .
CitedRe State of Norway’s Application (No 2) CA 1988
The basic requirement for an issue estoppel to arise was that ‘the earlier determination relied on as raising an issue estoppel shall have been fundamental to the decision first arrived at’. The Board did not accept that an issue estoppel is . .
CitedDuedu v Yiboe PC 1961
. .
Appeal fromGood Challenger Navegante S A v Metalexportimport S A ComC 10-Jan-2003
. .
CitedHunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police HL 19-Nov-1981
No collateral attack on Jury findigs.
An attempt was made to open up in a civil action, allegations of assaults by the police prior to the making of confessions which had been disposed of in a voir dire in the course of a criminal trial. The plaintiffs had imprisoned having spent many . .

Cited by:

CitedBritish American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd v United States of America CA 30-Jul-2004
The claimant appealed an order for its London solicitor to be examined in connection with proceedings in the US.
Held: A court should not make an order which was superfluous. The witness had now given his evidence. However, the foreign . .
CitedNational Ability Sa v Tinna Oils and Chemicals Ltd CA 11-Dec-2009
Implied promise to pay arbitral award
The parties disputed how limitation affects the enforcement of an arbitration award. More than six years had passed since the award had been made, and the defendant said it was out of time.
Held: A party can enforce an award either by ordinary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Limitation

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.188223

P and O Nedlloyd Bv v Arab Metals Co and others: CA 28 Mar 2006

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1300, [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 148, [2007] 1 WLR 2483

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromP and O Nedloyd BV v Arab Metals Co and Others (‘The UB Tiger’) QBD 22-Jun-2005
The claimants sought to amend their particulars of claim to add a request for declarations with regard to a bill of lading and contract for carriage.
Held: The application to amend was made more than six years after the cause of action . .

Cited by:

See AlsoP and O Nedlloyd Bv v Arab Metals Co and others CA 13-Dec-2006
An order for specific performance had been refused in a disputed contract for carriage. The claimant argued that normal limitation periods should not be applied by analogy.
Held: Because there was no corresponding legal remedy the remedy in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Equity, Limitation

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.245321

Mcevoy v AA Welding and Fabrication Ltd: CA 15 Dec 1997

Where a first writ issued within the primary limitation period is itself ineffective (although not a nullity) through having been issued variously without consent against a company in liquidation.
Held: The Walkley principle does not apply to defeat in limine a second action, notwithstanding that in each of those cases the defect was recognised to be curable by the late grant of leave.

Citations:

[1998] PIQR 266, [1997] EWCA Civ 2921

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 33

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 . .

Cited by:

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 . .
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.

Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.185754

Lloyds Bank Plc v Wojcik and Another: CA 19 Dec 1997

The defendants appealed a judgment giving the claimants possession of their property under a charge. The first defendant had been refused leave to amend his defence to argue a limitation point. The second defendant claimed she had been inveigled into signing the charge by the bank manager.
Held: The first defendant should have been given leave to amend his defence. Difficulties in the rules could deny justice to a defendant, and the court could use its discretion to extend the limitation period. Appeal allowed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Evans And Mr Justice Wilson

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 3065

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedWelsh Development Agency v Redpath Dorman Long Ltd CA 4-Apr-1994
A new claim was not deemed to have been made until the pleading was actually amended for limitation purposes, and should not be allowed after the limitation period had expired. The date of the application for leave to amend was not at issue. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.143464

Price v United Engineering Steels Limited; J J Habershon and Sons Limited: CA 12 Dec 1997

The plaintiff sought damages for deafness following exposure to excessive noise during his employment with the first and second defendants some 20 to 35 years previously. He issued his writ six years after the date of knowledge under LA section 14 and therefore three years after expiry of the limitation period. The judge had declined to extend time under section 33, having regard to prejudice caused by the loss of evidence and records in the period before the plaintiff’s date of knowledge.
Held: The appeal failed. The Court of Appeal extended the principle stated by Lord Oliver in Donovan so as to cover a period of time before the plaintiff knew, or could have known, that he had a claim. It would not be right to characterise this as ‘dilatoriness’. ‘Passage of time’ would be a fairer description.

Judges:

Brooke, Waller LJJ

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 2983, [1998] PIQR P407

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 33 811

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCollins 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: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.143382

Denekamp v Denekamp: CA 8 Dec 2005

The claimant sought leave to appeal against an order striking out his claim, a civil restrain order and dismissal of his claim for the defendant’s legal team be debarred from acting, being, he said, in contempt.
Held: Leave was refused: ‘I am in no doubt at all that these defendants are after all these years of fruitless litigation entitled to some peace of mind and some halt to the ceaseless pursuit by Mr Denekamp of his misconceived complaints against them. Far from the judge being wrong he was in my judgment obviously right. The way he floods me with paper confirms the view that the deluge must stop. This is an utterly hopeless application which must be dismissed. ‘

Judges:

Ward LJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1477

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.470693

Ford and Warren v Warring-Davies: QBD 12 Dec 2012

The claimant alleged that the defendant firm of solicitors had acted negligently in failing to complete by dating a deed securing an agreement for the commercial development of its invention. He sought to extend the limitation period, arguing that the solicitors had hidden their failing. The solicitors now appealed.

Judges:

Coulson J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 3523 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Professional Negligence, Limitation

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.467072

Devanney v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 13 Dec 2012

The claimant had for many years operated a mobile cafe from a layby on land owned by the respondents. He had claimed title to it by adverse possession. He appealed against rejection of the claim, the court having found that his occupation had not been continuous.
Held: The evidence was clear and saitisfactory that he had not been in occupation of the land for the full period suggested. The appeal failed.

Judges:

Arden, McFalane LJJ, Sir Stephen Sedley

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1660

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 15, Land Registration Act 2002 9691)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land, Limitation

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.467099

Huber v Steiner: 1835

An action was brought in 1835 on a French promissory note made in 1813 and payable in 1817. The defendant pleaded that by French law an action upon the note was prescribed.
Held: On its true construction, French law did not extinguish the debt but only barred the creditor from obtaining a remedy. This was a matter of French procedure which an English court would disregard.

Judges:

Tindal CJ

Citations:

(1835) 2 Bing NC 203

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedPhillips v Eyre CEC 1870
The court considered the rule of double actionability. The court laid down the test for whether a tort committed abroad was actionable in this jurisdiction: ‘As a general rule, in order to found a suit in England for a wrong alleged to have been . .
CitedHarding v Wealands HL 5-Jul-2006
Claim in UK for Accident in Australia
The claimant had been a passenger in a car driven by his now partner. They had an accident in New South Wales. The car was insured in Australia. He sought leave to sue in England and Wales because Australian law would limit the damages.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Limitation

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.242981

Binning Bros Limited (In Liquidation) v Thomas Eggar Verrall Bowles (a Firm): CA 11 Nov 1997

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 2688, [1998] 1 All ER 409

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedKleinwort Benson Ltd v Barbrack Ltd HL 1987
A two-stage test is to be applied by a court, first ascertaining if there are good reasons for extending time and second weighing all relevant factors and balancing the hardship between the parties before deciding whether the writ should be extended . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Trusts, Limitation, Contract

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.143087

Knapp 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 suffered damage when the policy was entered into: ‘the cause of action can accrue and the plaintiff have suffered damages once he has acted upon the relevant advice ‘to his detriment’ and failed to get that to which he was entitled. He is less well off than he would have been if the defendant had not been negligent. Applying this to the present case, the plaintiffs paid their renewal premium without getting in return a binding contract of indemnity from the insurance company. They had acted to their detriment: they did not get that to which they were entitled. The fact that how serious the consequences of the negligence would be depended upon subsequent events and contingencies does not alter this; such considerations go to the quantification of the plaintiffs’ loss not to whether or not they have suffered loss. The risk of loss existed from the outset and in the absence of better evidence would have to be evaluated and assessed as a risk and damages awarded accordingly.’
and ‘It is immaterial that at some later time the damage suffered by the plaintiffs became more serious or was capable of more precise quantification. Provided that some damage has been suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of the second defendant’s negligence which was ‘real damage’ (as distinct from purely minimal damage) or damage ‘beyond what can be regarded as negligible’ that suffices for the accrual of the cause of action.’

Judges:

Hobhouse LJ

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 2616, [1998] PNLR 172, [1998] Lloyds Rep IR 390

Links:

Bailii

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 . .
CitedBaker v Ollard and Bentley CA 12-May-1982
The plaintiff and a Mr and Mrs Bodman agreed to buy a house. The plaintiff intended to live on the first floor and the Bodmans on the ground floor. The solicitor should have advised them to convey the freehold into their joint names and then to . .

Cited by:

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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
CitedIqbal v Legal Services Commission CA 10-May-2005
The claimant had been a partner in a firm of solicitors. They came to be suspected by the respondent of overclaiming legal aid payments and sums were withheld. For this and other reasons the practice folded, and the claimant became insolvent. He . .
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 . .
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 . .
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.
CitedSpencer v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Moore v Similar CA 1-Jul-2008
Frankovich claim – arises with measurable loss
Each claimant sought Frankovich damages alleging a failure to implement European law leading to a loss.
Held: Such a claim was available against the government after it had failed to implement the Directive so as to provide them with the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Limitation

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.143015

Johnson v Ministry of Defence and Another: CA 21 Nov 2012

The claimant said that he had been exposed him to excessive noise during the course of his employment, causing his deafness. He noticed his hearing problems in 2001. He was also aware that exposure to noise could cause hearing loss, but did not associate his own hearing problems with exposure to noise in earlier years. In 2006 a doctor attributed his hearing difficulties to ageing. In 2009 J saw a consultant who advised that he had noise induced hearing loss. He then issued proceedings. The trial judge dismissed J’s claim on limitation grounds.
Held: His appeal failed. A reasonable person in his position would have been curious about the cause of his deafness. He would have consulted his general practitioner. The doctor would probably have asked him about his employment history. This would have led to possible attribution of the claimant’s deafness to exposure to excessive noise at work. Allowing a year or so for consideration, J was fixed with constructive knowledge about the possible cause of his deafness by the end of 2002.

Judges:

Hallett, Etherton LJJ, Dame Janet Smith

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1505, [2013] PIQR P7

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 11 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCollins 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: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465943

Michael Abbs, Rachel Marie Hoey v Edward James Eldridge, Joanna Claire Eldridge (Adverse Possession): LRA 21 Sep 2011

LRA Application for first registration of land – objection based on adverse possession – whether application for first registration is ‘action for recovery of land’ – consideration of provisions of Limitation Act 1980 and Land Registration Act 2002

Citations:

[2011] EWLandRA 2010 – 1166

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Registered Land, Limitation

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465870

Davies and Others v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change: CA 25 Oct 2012

The claimants sought leave to bring cases in negligence in respect of their working conditions in coal mines between 1954 and 1994 which, they said resulted in osteoarthritis of the knee. The claims were well outside the standard limitation period.

Judges:

Mummery, Hallett, Tomlinson LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1380

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1939

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465362

BCL Old Co Ltd and Others v BASF Plc and Others: SC 24 Oct 2012

The claimant sought damages after it had been established in 2001 that the defendants had engaged in an unlawful cartel to maintain the prices of vitamins. The defendants had paid fines, and now argued that the claims, begun in 2008, were out of time, the limitation period being 2 years from the infringement decision. The claimants had argued that the period began to run on the expiry of the period allowed for an appeal against the infringement decision, and now appealed against rejection of that claim saying that it led to uncertainty.
Held: The appeal failed. There had been no failure to comply with the principles of effectiveness and legal certainty required under EU law. The limitation period was set out with sufficient clarity and precise as to allow parties to ascertain and exercise their rights.

Judges:

Lord Phillips, Lord Walker, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson

Citations:

[2012] UKSC 45, UKSC 2010/0236, [2012] 1 WLR 2922, [2012] Bus LR 1801, [2012] WLR(D) 286

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC

Statutes:

Competition Act 1998 47A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoBCL Old Co Ltd and others v Basf Se and others CAT 25-Sep-2008
The claimant sought damages after the defendants had been found to be part of an unlawful price maintenance cartel. The respondent argued that the claim was out of time.
Held: The claim could proceed. . .
See AlsoBCL Old Co Ltd and others v Aventis Sa and others CAT 28-Jan-2005
Applications for security for costs. . .
See AlsoBCL Old Co Ltd v Basf Se CAT 17-Oct-2008
The Tribunal unanimously decided that ‘the relevant date’ under rule 31(2) of the Tribunal Rules for the purposes of the Claimants’ claim fell on the expiry of the period during which an appeal against the relevant judgment of the CFI could have . .
See AlsoBCL Old Co Ltd and Others v BASF Se and Others CA 22-May-2009
The claimant sought to bring an action for damages arising from an alleged breach of competition rules by the defendant. The defendant argued that the claim was out of time being outside the two year period required.
Held: The respondent’s . .
See AlsoBCL Old Co Ltd and Others Basf Se (Formerly Basf Ag) and Others CAT 19-Nov-2009
The claimants wished to claim damages arising from the participation by the defendants in an unlawful cartel. The Court of Appeal had said that the claim was out of time, and that the claimants would have to seek an extension of time to bring their . .
See AlsoBCL Old Co Ltd and Others v BASF Se (Formerly BASF Ag) and Others CAT 12-Feb-2010
. .

Cited by:

CitedDeutsche Bahn Ag and Others v Morgan Advanced Materials Plc SC 9-Apr-2014
The Court was asked whether claims against MAM for losses suffered by reason of a cartel infringing article 81(1) TEC (now article 101 TFEU) were time-barred, and also as to substantive questions about the nature of the decisions of the European . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, European, Limitation

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.465184

Hemmingway and Another v Smith Roddam (A Firm) and others: CA 18 Sep 2003

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1342

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCharles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Ltd and Another TCC 5-Dec-2006
The land owner sought damages for negligence against its builder and a sub-contractor. Having left the issue too late to complete the pre-action protocol, it issued proceedings, but then had to seek to amend the pleadings to add a further claim out . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Limitation

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.186690

Moore and Another v Gadd and Another: CA 5 Feb 1997

The normal limitation period applies to directors’ disqualification applications.

Citations:

Gazette 26-Feb-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 931, Times 17-Feb-1997

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 39

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHalstead v Council of City of Manchester CA 23-Oct-1997
Land had been compulsorily purchased, and the compensation agreed, but after long delays in payment, not as to the calculation of interest.
Held: Interest would be payable from the date of entry. The limitation period arose only once the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Company

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.141327

Hopkinson and Others and Birmingham Mid-Shires Building Society v Tupper: CA 30 Jan 1997

The plaintiffs appealed from an order striking out their claim for want of prosecution. The defendant’s property had been sold by the mortgagees, and the plaintiffs as assignees of their debt sought to recover the balance outstanding from the defendants. The defendant had been in default since 1984. The defendants said that the claim was in personalty only being under the assignment of the debt.
Held: There was a presumption that money recovered would be applied first in the repayment of interest. It was arguable that a 12 years’ limitation period under the general rule in Section 8 of the 1980 Act for actions on a specialty would not apply. Auld LJ said: ‘it is seriously arguable that when a mortgagee has re-possessed and has sold the security and is seeking to recover the shortfall, his claim is in simple contract whatever the nature of the instrument under which the debt was initially secured’.
As to the delay, the judge had considered the correct elements. The circumstances of a case, the issues and the length of delay, may entitle a court to infer that memories are likely to have become so dim as seriously to prejudice the case of a party and make continuation of the proceedings unfair. The defendant had suffered prejudice by the delay.

Judges:

Auld LJ

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 882

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 5 8 20(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBirkett v James HL 1977
Exercise of Power to Strike Out
The court has an inherent power to strike out an action for want of prosecution, and the House set down the conditions for its exercise. The power is discretionary and exercisable only where (a) there has been inordinate and inexcusable delay and . .
CitedBarclays Bank v Miller CA 1990
In a case of inordinate, culpable and prejudicial delay where it is seriously arguable that the cause of action would be time-barred if fresh proceedings were issued, the better course may be to dismiss the action for want of prosecution and leave . .
CitedNational Westminster Bank Plc v Kitch CA 14-May-1996
An action to recover an overdraft debt which was secured by a mortgage is not itself a mortgage action. A claim based on a simple contract debt does not cease to be so simply because it is also secured by a charge. . .
CitedBarnes v Glenton 1899
A contract debt had been then secured on land. The defendant pleaded limitation.
Held: The section, in not enlarging the period of recovery of a simple contract debt from 6 years to 12 years, was prohibitory and was enacted to limit existing . .
CitedRath v CS Lawrence and Partners (PJ Cook and Co) (a Firm) (Third Party) CA 1991
The plaintiff bought the property in 1982, relying on the defendant’s survey, which later proved incorrect having failed to identify subsidence. The writ was issued in 1984. Delays before the expiry of the limitation period led the defendant to . .
CitedShtun v Zaljejska CA 18-Apr-1996
Evidence of prejudice from inexcusable delay is to be examined carefully. It is not essential for a finding of prejudice in such a case that there should be evidence of the particular respects in which potential witnesses’ recollections have been . .

Cited by:

CitedBristol and West plc v Bartlett and Another; Paragon Finance plc v Banks; Halifax plc v Grant CA 31-Jul-2002
The defendants resisted claims by lenders for the payment of mortgage debts. In each case the lender had exercised the power of sale before issuing proceedings for possession. The defendants queried the limitation period applicable.
Held: The . .
CitedWilkinson and Another v West Bromwich Building Society CA 30-Jul-2004
The Society had repossessed and sold the mortgagors’ house in 1990. It knew then that there was a shortfall, but took no further recovery proceedings until 2002. What was the date from which the relevant limitation period began to run? Though the . .
CitedWest Bromwich Building Society v Wilkinson HL 30-Jun-2005
The Society had taken possession of a property in 1989. It located the defendants many years later and sought payment of the excess after deduction of the proceeds of sale, and for interest. The borrowers claimed the debt was expired by limitation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.141278

Deutsche Bahn Ag and Others v Morgan Crucible Company Plc and Others: CA 31 Jul 2012

The respondent company (MC) had disclosed to the European Commission its own historical involvement in unlawful price-fixing cartels. Other members, but not MC received fines. The claimants (DB) sought damages for their losses arising from the cartel, but their claims were deemed out of time. The claimants appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The issue was one of domestic law, being a claim was for private law damages, and was not unrelated to the penalties or fines which sanction breaches of European law; section 47A was a domestic provision regulating limitation, a matter left to domestic law. The statutory references to a ‘decision’ establishing that the prohibition ‘has been infringed’ was quite general in their natural and ordinary meaning, and did not refer to ‘a decision against, or as regards, a particular party or particular addressee of the Commission Decision’.
Practical considerations also militated in favour of this interpretation. It was more sensible that any follow-on claim should be postponed until the final decision on infringement was known, ‘so that all questions of causation, quantum and contribution could be resolved at the same time’.

Judges:

Mummery, Etherton and Sullivan LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1055, [2013] Bus LR 125

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Competition Act 1998 47A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal FromDeutsche Bahn Ag and Others v Morgan Crucible Company Plc and Others CAT 25-May-2011
. .

Cited by:

Appeal fromDeutsche Bahn Ag and Others v Morgan Advanced Materials Plc SC 9-Apr-2014
The Court was asked whether claims against MAM for losses suffered by reason of a cartel infringing article 81(1) TEC (now article 101 TFEU) were time-barred, and also as to substantive questions about the nature of the decisions of the European . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Commercial, Limitation

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463423

Lloyds Bank Plc v Rogers and Another: CA 20 Dec 1996

An out of time claim for defamation was allowed after late disclosures by the defendant bank in the case.

Citations:

Times 24-Mar-1997, [1996] EWCA Civ 1277

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromLloyd’s Bank Plc v Rogers and Another QBD 11-Apr-1996
Claim may be added outside limitation period where based on same facts. . .

Cited by:

Appealed toLloyd’s Bank Plc v Rogers and Another QBD 11-Apr-1996
Claim may be added outside limitation period where based on same facts. . .
CitedCharles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Ltd and Another TCC 5-Dec-2006
The land owner sought damages for negligence against its builder and a sub-contractor. Having left the issue too late to complete the pre-action protocol, it issued proceedings, but then had to seek to amend the pleadings to add a further claim out . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Limitation

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.141145

Forward v Hendricks: CA 6 Dec 1996

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Civ 1132, [1997] 2 All ER 395

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 . .

Cited by:

CitedShapland 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 . .
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.

Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.140999

Armstrong and others v British Coal Corporation: CA 28 Nov 1996

Liability for vibration white finger damage was foreseeable from 1973, but liability began in 1975 when precautions became available against the consequences and so the employer was able to protect his employees.

Citations:

Times 06-Dec-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 1049

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBaker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd and Others SC 13-Apr-2011
The court was asked as to the liability of employers in the knitting industry for hearing losses suffered by employees before the 1989 Regulations came into effect. The claimant had worked in a factory between 1971 and 2001, sustaining noise induced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Limitation, Health and Safety

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.140916

Taylor v Couch: ChD 1 Mar 2012

The case raised the question of law involving the application of the rule against perpetuities to what, on the claimant’s case, is a right of pre-emption created before the coming into force in 2010 of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009.’
Held: The right purportedly exercised by the letter had become void for remoteness, and the claim failed. A right of pre-emption is to be treated differently from an option, but that is because a right of pre-emption does not arise independently of the volition of the grantor of the right. A conditional contract is to be distinguished from an option in the sense that a conditional contract will automatically become binding on the occurrence of the contingency in question whereas, even if an option is contingent upon a certain event, it will not automatically become binding independently of the volition of the grantee. It seems to me that there are distinctions between a right of pre-emption, an option, and a conditional contract. An option, provided that it can be triggered independently of the volition of the grantor, may, in addition to the volition of the grantee, be conditional upon external events and yet still remain an option.

Judges:

Hodge QC HHJ

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1213 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009, Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedPritchard v Briggs CA 1980
A conveyance of part in 1944 gave a right of pre-emption over retained land. The vendor’s successors the let the retained land to the plaintiff with an option to buy the freehold reversion. The retained land was sold to the defendants in purported . .
CitedWilson v Truelove ChD 25-Mar-2003
The claimants requested a declaration that an option to repurchase land was void under the 1964 Act.
Held: The option to repurchase land was prima facie void. The right arose on the coming into existence of the agreement, or at the latest on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460460

Knight v Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust, the National Health Service Litigation Authority, The Secretary of State for Health: QBD 23 Jul 2003

A contribution to a damages award was sought. The two year period under section 10 had expired between the anniversary of the date on which an agreement to settle the victim’s claim had been made and the anniversary of the consent order which had given effect to the agreement. The court had to decide whether the period for limitation purposes was fixed by subsection 10(3) or 10(4).
Held: A consent order amounted to a ‘judgment’. Subsection 10(4) applied and the contribution claim was time barred: ‘My principal reason for doing so is if a firm agreement is made, as here, time undoubtedly starts to run at that moment. It would be different if the agreement required the making of a consent order before it took effect. Neither party so contends here. Although Parliament could have decided that a consent order should restart the clock, there are insufficiently clear words to indicate that. Indeed the words in subsection (1) ‘Where . . any person becomes entitled’ and the words in subsection (4) ‘the earliest date on which the amount . . is agreed’ suggest that the crucial moment is the first moment when liability arises. It is tidy to conclude that subsections (3) and (4) deal separately with cases decided by a court (or arbitrator) and cases of agreement.’

Judges:

Mr Justice Crane

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1831 (QB), [2004] 1 WLR 371

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 10(3) 10(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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.

Health Professions, Professional Negligence, Limitation

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.184876

Coban v Aynur Allen F Barnes and Son (a Firm): CA 8 Oct 1996

The defendant resisted the plaintiff’s claim for personal injuries as out of time. His explanation for not pursuing inquiries with his solicitor was that he was an over-stayer who feared deportation.
Held: Having good reason to make such inquiries, it was reasonable for him to do so despite his immigration status.

Citations:

[1997] 8 Med LR 316, [1996] EWCA Civ 680

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 14A(10)

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

Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.140547

Hamlin and Another v Edwin Evans (A Firm): CA 15 Jul 1996

The plaintiffs had discovered that the defendant surveyors had negligently failed to observe that there was dry rot but did not start proceedings until other negligence was discovered more than six years later.
Held: Although the negligent survey had led to two heads of loss there was only one cause of action. Since the plaintiffs had discovered the dry rot over six years previously, the action was statute barred. Only one cause of action arises from a negligent survey; and there is only one applicable limitation period.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Jul-1996, Times 15-Jul-1996, [1996] PNLR 398

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 14A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Professional Negligence, Limitation

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.81199

Lodge (T/A JD Lodge) v Wakefield Metropolitan Council: CA 21 Mar 1995

The plaintiff had formerly been a tenant of the defendant under an informal tenancy. No rent had been paid since 1974. He claimed to have acquired the land by adverse possession. He gave evidence at trial that if he had been asked to pay rent at any time before the twelve years were completed, he would have done so.
Held: A tenant in possession was during the subsistence of the tenancy entitled to exclude from the land the world at large, including the landlord. The squatter necessarily had the requisite mental intention of possessing the property for the purpose of adverse possession.

Citations:

[1995] EWCA Civ 41, [1995] 38 EG 136, [1995] EGCS 51, [1995] 2 EGLR 124

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedPowell v McFarlane ChD 1977
Intention to Establish Adverse Possession of Land
A squatter had occupied the land and defended a claim for possession. The court discussed the conditions necessary to establish an intention to possess land adversely to the paper owner.
Held: Slade J said: ‘It will be convenient to begin by . .
CitedMoses v Lovegrove CA 29-Apr-1952
The tenant had gone into possession under an oral agreement with a rent book. He ceased to pay rent or acknowledge the landlord’s right in 1938. In 1952 the landlord sought to recover possession, and now appealed a finding that the tenant had . .
CitedHayward v Chaloner CA 1968
The alleged tenant (the rector of a parish) knew that rent should have been paid but had not paid it. ‘Only one of the previous rectors gave evidence. He was the Rev. Richard Phillips (dates) He knew the rectory cottages and said that the land . .

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.

Landlord and Tenant, Limitation

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.259343

Lowsley and Another v Forbes: CA 21 Mar 1996

The statutory time limit under the Limitation Act applied only to the right to take substantive proceedings and had nothing whatever to do with the procedural machinery for enforcing a judgment when one was obtained. The Act of 1875 brought about a fundamental change. The old absolute time bar on execution after 20 years, subsequently reduced to 12 years, was replaced by a discretionary bar after six years. On the making of a charging order, the amount to be secured by it was not limited to 6 years’ interest up to that date.
Garnishee proceedings to enforce a judgment were not subject to the limitation period in s.24(1); that section applied solely to an action to enforce the judgment and not to other procedural methods used to enforce a judgment. Evans LJ said: ‘The distinction between bringing an action to enforce a judgment, to which the Limitation Act applies, and bringing other forms of proceedings to enforce the original judgment, to which it does not, can perhaps be criticised as technical and indicating an out-dated preference for form over substance, but in my view the distinction can be justified. The policy reasons for barring the commencement of actions after a certain period has expired do not apply in the same way to the many different circumstances in which a successful plaintiff may seek to enforce a judgment which the defendant has ignored or failed to comply with for the same or a longer period after the judgment was given.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Evans, Lord Justice Saville and Lord Justice Morritt

Citations:

Times 05-Apr-1996, [1996] CLC 1370

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 24(1) 24(2), Supreme Court of Judicature (1873) Amendment Act 1875

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedNational Westminster Bank v Powney CA 1990
The limitation period has nothing to do with the procedural machinery of enforcing a judgment when one was obtained. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromLowsley and Another v Forbes (Trading As I E Design Services) HL 29-Jul-1998
The plaintiffs, with the leave of the court, had obtained garnishee and charging orders nisi against the debtor 11 and a half years after they had obtained a consent judgment.
Held: An application by the judgment debtor to set aside the orders . .
CitedNational Ability Sa v Tinna Oils and Chemicals Ltd CA 11-Dec-2009
Implied promise to pay arbitral award
The parties disputed how limitation affects the enforcement of an arbitration award. More than six years had passed since the award had been made, and the defendant said it was out of time.
Held: A party can enforce an award either by ordinary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.83229

Customs and Excise Commissioners v Le Rififi Ltd: CA 14 Dec 1994

One paper assessment covering several tax periods need always not be treated as just one assessment. This was a question of fact to be decided on the particular circumstances.

Citations:

Times 14-Dec-1994, Gazette 15-Feb-1995

Statutes:

Finance Act 1985 22(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed fromCommissioners of Customs and Excise v Le Rififi Ltd QBD 2-Aug-1993
One assessment covering numerous accounting periods constitutes a single global assessment. If any part of a global VAT assessment is time barred, then the whole assessment fails. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Limitation

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.79334

Yates v Thakeham Tiles Ltd: CA 19 May 1994

Appeals against a judge’s use of his judicial discretion exercised on the extension of time for commencement of proceedings will succeed only with difficulty.

Citations:

Times 19-May-1994, [1995] PIQR 135

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 33(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedChagos Islanders v Attorney-General and Another CA 22-Jul-2004
The claimants sought leave to appeal against a finding that they had no cause of action for their expulsion from their islands.
Held: ‘Exile without colour of law is forbidden by Magna Carta. That it can amount to a public law wrong is already . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.90657

Nash v Eli Lilley and Co: CA 1993

The court was asked as to the extent and nature of knowledge required to start time running against a plaintiff in a negligence case.
Purchas LJ said: ‘It is to be noted that a firm belief held by the plaintiff that his injury was attributable to act or omission of the defendant, but in respect of which he thought it necessary to obtain reassurance or confirmation from experts, medical or legal or others, would not be regarded as knowledge until the result of his inquiries was known to him or, if he delayed in obtaining that confirmation, until the time at which it was reasonable for him to have got it . . ‘ and ‘Of course, as advice from a solicitor as to the legal consequences of the act or omission is not relevant, his contribution can only consist of factual information. Moreover, where constructive knowledge is under consideration through the channel of a solicitor, this can only be relevant where it is established that the plaintiff ought reasonably to have consulted at all. Thus it is for the defendant to establish not only that a solicitor whom the plaintiff might consult would have the necessary knowledge but also that it was reasonable to expect the plaintiff to consult him.’

Judges:

Purchas LJ

Citations:

[1993] 4 All ER 395, [1993] 1 WLR 782

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 14(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedGraham v Entec Europe Ltd (T/A Exploration Associates) CA 6-Aug-2003
The claimant’s bungalow suffered subsidence. Repair works were undertaken as advised by the defendants, but unsuccessfully. The claimant’s insurers instructed experts negotiators to investigate with a view to a claim. The defendants now claimed the . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.186304

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

Concealment by Defendant after the event does not stop time running against Plaintiff.

Citations:

Times 01-Jul-1994, Independent 08-Jul-1994

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 32(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromSheldon and Others v R H M Outhwaite (Underwriting Agencies) Ltd QBD 8-Dec-1993
Deliberate concealment could prevent the limitation period from running. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromSheldon and Others v R H M Outhwaite (Underwriting Agencies) Ltd and Others HL 5-May-1995
The limitation period did not run whilst relevant facts were deliberately concealed after the damage had been concealed. Section 32 could apply where the concealment of the relevant fact took place after the event as well as at the time of it. The . .
Appealed toSheldon and Others v R H M Outhwaite (Underwriting Agencies) Ltd QBD 8-Dec-1993
Deliberate concealment could prevent the limitation period from running. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.89210

Restick v Crickmore: CA 3 Dec 1993

The High Court can transfer proceedings wrongly started in High Court to the County Court as an alternative to its jurisdiction to strike out the claim. Stuart-Smith LJ said: ‘. . provided proceedings are started within the time permitted by the statute of limitations, are not frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the process of the court and disclose a cause of action, they will not as a rule be struck out because of some mistake in procedure on the part of the plaintiff or his advisers. Save where there has been a contumelious disobedience of the court’s order, the draconian sanction of striking out an otherwise properly constituted action, simply to punish the party who has failed to comply with the rules of court, is not part of the court’s function . .’

Judges:

Stuart-Smith LJ

Citations:

Times 03-Dec-1993, Ind Summary 20-Dec-1993, Gazette 26-Jan-1994, [1994] 1 WLR 420

Statutes:

Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBirmingham City Council v Abdulla and Others CA 29-Nov-2011
The Council appealed against an order dismissing its application for the claimants’ claims under equal pay legislation to be struck out for want of jurisdiction. The claims had been brought in the High Court rather than te hEmployment Tribunal, thus . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Limitation

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.88744

Hughes v Cook and Another: CA 14 Feb 1994

Adverse possession will accrue even if the claimant believed and acted on the mistaken belief that the land was already his. That belief was inconsistent with ownership by others. Beldam LJ said that counsel’s argument was fallacious: ‘. . in the failure to distinguish between an intention to possess, which is required, and an intention to dispossess, which is not.’
Saville LJ said: ‘The learned judge appears to have held that it is impossible for someone who believes himself to be the true owner to acquire title by adverse possession since such a person cannot, ex hypothesi, have an intention to exclude or oust the true owner. If this were the law then only those who knew they were trespassing, that is to say doing something illegal, could require such a title, whilst those who did not realise that they were doing anything wrong would acquire no right at all. I can see no reason why, as a matter of justice or common sense, the former but not the latter should be able to acquire title in this way. What the law requires is factual possession i.e. an exclusive dealing with the land as an occupying owner might be expected to deal with it, together with a manifested intention to treat the land as belonging to the possessor to the exclusion of everyone else. Obviously if the possessor knows or believes someone else has the paper title to the land he must intend to exclude that person along with everyone else. But in the absence of such knowledge or belief it is in my judgment sufficient for this part of the second requirement simply to establish a manifest intention to exclude everyone.’

Judges:

Beldam LJ, Saville LJ

Citations:

Ind Summary 21-Mar-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRoberts v Swangrove Estates Ltd and Another ChD 14-Mar-2007
The court heard preliminary applications in a case asserting acquisition of land by adverse possession, the land being parts of the foreshore of the Severn Estuary.
Held: A person may acquire title to part of the bed of a tidal river by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.81520

Dobbie 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 benign. The patient knew very soon after the operation that the lump was benign but did not know until 1988 that that meant her breast need not have been removed. She began proceedings for negligence in 1989.
Held: Time began to run from the date of knowledge of the cause of an injury, not the date when the claimant knew that the cause was tortious. Sir Thomas Bingham MR considered the test of knowledge: ‘This test is not in my judgment hard to apply. It involves ascertaining the personal injury on which the claim is founded and asking when the claimant knew of it. In the case of an insidious disease or a delayed result of a surgical mishap, this knowledge may come well after the suffering of the disease or the performance of the surgery. But more usually the claimant knows that he has suffered personal injury as soon or almost as soon as he does so’. ‘The word ‘attributable’ in section 14(1) (b) does not mean ’caused by’. It merely means ‘capable of being attributed”.
Sir Thomas Bingham MR said: ‘The personal injury on which the plaintiff seeks to found her claim is the removal of her breast and the psychological and physical harm which followed. She knew of this injury within hours, days or months of the operation and she at all times reasonably considered it to be significant. She knew from the beginning that this injury was capable of being attributed to, or more bluntly was the clear and direct result of, an act or omission of the health authority. What she did not appreciate until later was that the health authority’s act or omission was (arguably) negligent or blameworthy. But her want of that knowledge did not stop time beginning to run.’
As to the meaning of ‘significant injury’: ‘The requirement that the injury of which a plaintiff has knowledge should be ‘significant’ is in my view directed solely to the quantum of the injury and not to the plaintiff’s evaluation of its cause, nature or usualness. Time does not run against a plaintiff, even if he is aware of the injury, if he would reasonably have considered it insufficiently serious to justify proceedings against an acquiescent and credit-worthy defendant, if (in other words) he would reasonably have accepted it as a fact of life or not worth bothering about. It is otherwise if the injury is reasonably to be considered as sufficiently serious within the statutory definition: time then runs (subject to the requirement of attributability) even if the plaintiff believes the injury to be normal or properly caused.’

Judges:

Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Steyn LJ

Citations:

Ind Summary 06-Jun-1994, Times 18-May-1994, [1994] 1 WLR 1234, 1994 5 MEDLR 160, [1994] EWCA Civ 13, [1994] 4 All ER 450, [1994] PIQR 353

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 11(4)(b) 14(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHalford v Brookes CA 1991
The plaintiff, the mother and administratrix of the estate of a 16 year old girl, alleged that her daughter had been murdered by one or both of the Defendants. The claim was for damages for battery. Rougier J at first instance had decided that: . .

Cited by:

CitedRowbottom v Royal Masonic Hospital CA 12-Feb-2002
The claimant sought damages for the negligent failure to administer antibiotics. Earlier proceedings had been discontinued, and the hospital resisted subsequent proceedings, claiming them to be time-barred. The claimant asserted that he knew of the . .
CitedO’Driscoll v Dudley Health Authority CA 30-Apr-1998
The plaintiff sought damages for the negligence of the respondent in her care at birth. Years later the family concluded that her condition was a result of negligence. They waited until she was 21, when they mistakenly believed that she became an . .
CitedRoberts 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 . .
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 . .
CitedKR and others v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd and Another CA 10-Jun-2003
The court considered an extension of the time for claiming damages for personal injuries after the claimants said they had been sexually abused as children in the care of the defendants.
Held: The test to be applied under section 14(2) was . .
CitedMcCoubrey v Ministry of Defence CA 24-Jan-2007
The defendant appealed a decision allowing a claim to proceed more than ten years after it had been suffered. The claimant’s hearing had been damaged after an officer threw a thunderflash into his trench on an exercise.
Held: The defendant’s . .
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: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.80075

Broadley and Guy v Chapman and Co: CA 26 Jul 1993

The limitation period starts when the plaintiff realizes that her injury may have been caused by the failure of the medical practitioner. ‘Attributable to’ means ‘capable of being attributed to’ and not ’caused by’. ‘Act or omission’ does not equate with ‘negligence’, ‘actionable’ or ‘tortious’.

Citations:

Ind Summary 26-Jul-1993, Times 06-Jul-1993, [1993] 4 Med L R 328

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedO’Driscoll v Dudley Health Authority CA 30-Apr-1998
The plaintiff sought damages for the negligence of the respondent in her care at birth. Years later the family concluded that her condition was a result of negligence. They waited until she was 21, when they mistakenly believed that she became an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Professional Negligence

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.78661

Iqbal v Legal Services Commission: CA 10 May 2005

The claimant had been a partner in a firm of solicitors. They came to be suspected by the respondent of overclaiming legal aid payments and sums were withheld. For this and other reasons the practice folded, and the claimant became insolvent. He claimed that officers of the respondent had acted improperly, and claimed misfeasance in public office, in inter alia having failed to make payments which it had agreed to make. The respondent replied as a preliminary point that the claim was out of time.
Held: There was nothing to indicate that any failure by the Commission was continuing, and the applicant had not established any malice in law to found a claim.

Judges:

Pill, Chadwick, May LJJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 623

Links:

Bailii

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 . .
CitedHopkins v Mackenzie CA 27-Oct-1994
A loss arising from a solicitor’s failure to pursue a case arose only when the claim was struck out, not earlier when compromised, and even though value already diminished. Accordingly the limitation period began to run from that time. . .
CitedThree Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England (No 3) HL 22-Mar-2001
Misfeasance in Public Office – Recklessness
The bank sought to strike out the claim alleging misfeasance in public office in having failed to regulate the failed bank, BCCI.
Held: Misfeasance in public office might occur not only when a company officer acted to injure a party, but also . .
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 . .
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 . .
DistinguishedDarley Main Colliery Co v Mitchell HL 1886
The owner of land whose land was affected by subsidence in 1868 and who received compensation from those who had worked coal and caused the subsidence, was able, in 1882 when further subsidence took place causing further injury, to bring a fresh . .
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. . .
CitedPhonographic Performance Limited v Department of Trade and Industry HM Attorney General ChD 23-Jul-2004
The claimant represented the interests of copyright holders, and complained that the defendant had failed to implement the Directive properly, leaving them unable properly to collect royalties in the music rental market. The respondent argued that . .
CitedYeheskel Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd ComC 11-Nov-1999
A claimant in an action for damages for breaches of Articles 85, 86 of Rome Treaty, who had previously complained of such breaches to the European Commission but failed to complain of matters subsequently, attempted to raise in an action is . .
CitedHomburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd (the ‘Starsin’) HL 13-Mar-2003
Cargo owners sought damages for their cargo which had been damaged aboard the ship. The contract had been endorsed with additional terms. That variation may have changed the contract from a charterer’s to a shipowner’s bill.
Held: The specific . .
CitedHomburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd (The Starsin) CA 23-Jan-2001
Cargo had been negligently stowed on a ship so that condensation caused damage during the subsequent voyage. The claimant only acquired a title to the cargo after the voyage had commenced. The defendants contended that no duty of care could be owed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Limitation, Torts – Other

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.226149

Barry 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 widow sought to pursue an action, but it was claimed that this was out of time.
Held: The first action was timeous. Section 33 was not available to the widow to provide a discretion for the judge to allow her action. Time began running for her on receipt of the post mortem report. There were no exceptional circumstances to justify the availability of any discretion in the judge. As to Walkley: ‘The rationale of the Walkley principle is, as already explained, that it is not the time limit in section 11 which prejudices the claimant in such circumstances but rather the fact that he had previously commenced timeous proceedings which, for whatever reason, were not then successfully pursued.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Laws Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Simon Brown

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1034, Times 18-Jul-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 2868, [2003] 1 WLR 2868

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 11 12 33

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 . .
CitedShapland 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 . .
CitedThompson v Brown Construction (Ebbw Vale) Ltd HL 1981
The plaintiff’s solicitors, out of negligence, failed to issue a writ until one month after the limitation period had expired. The application to extend the period was rejected at first instance since he had an unanswerable claim against his . .
CitedWhite v Glass CA 17-Feb-1989
The plaintiff had sued his club under its name, but it was an unincorporated association, and the action was stricken out as improperly constituted. The first writ issued within the primary limitation period but was ineffective. The defendant . .
CitedMcevoy v AA Welding and Fabrication Ltd CA 15-Dec-1997
Where a first writ issued within the primary limitation period is itself ineffective (although not a nullity) through having been issued variously without consent against a company in liquidation.
Held: The Walkley principle does not apply to . .
CitedRe Workvale Ltd (In Liquidation) CA 8-Apr-1992
A limited company was correctly restored to the register from dissolution so that its insurers could face an arguable claim. Where a first writ issued within the primary limitation period was ineffective (although not a nullity) through having been . .
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 . .
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 . .
CitedClay v Chamberlain QBD 2002
The claimant sought the judge’s discretion to disapply the rule in Walkley. The judge characterised the defendant’s conduct as ‘though not improper, sufficiently blameworthy to result in a situation which was at any rate analogous to an estoppel and . .
CitedAshingdane v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-1985
The right of access to the courts is not absolute but may be subject to limitations. These are permitted by implication since the right of access ‘by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and place . .
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:

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, Litigation Practice

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.184885

Taylor 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 conduct of assignments for the benefit of creditors. Twelve years after the conveyance creditors commenced proceedings to set it aside. The mortgagee relied on the statute of limitations.
Held: He was entitled to do so. The Board rejected the argument that the mortgagee was an express trustee.
Viscount Cave said: ‘The expressions ‘trust property’ and ‘retained by the trustee’ properly apply, not to a case where a person having taken possession of the property on his own behalf is liable to be declared a trustee by the Court; but rather to a case where he originally took possession upon trust or on behalf of others. In other words they refer to cases where a trust arose before the occurrence of the transaction impeached and not to cases where it arises only by reason of that transaction. The exception no doubt applies, not only to an express trustee named in the instrument of trust, but also to those persons who under the rules explained in Soar v Ashwell and other cases are to be treated as being in a like position; but in their Lordships’ opinion it does not apply to a mere constructive trustee of the character described in the judgment of Sir William Grant.’
Viscount Cave said: ‘The possession of an express trustee was treated by the Courts as the possession of his cestuis que trustent, and accordingly time did not run in his favour against them. This disability applied, not only to a trustee named as such in the instrument of trust, but to a person who, though not so named, had assumed the position of a trustee for others or had taken possession or control of the property on their behalf such (for instance) as the persons enumerated in the judgment of Bowen L.J. in Soar v Ashwell or those whose position was in question in Burdick v Garrick, In re Sharpe, Rochefoucauld v Boustead, and Reid-Newfoundland Co v Anglo-American Telegraph Co. These persons, though not originally trustees, had taken upon themselves the custody and administration of property on behalf of others; and though sometimes referred to as constructive trustees, they were, in fact, actual trustees, though not so named. It followed that their possession also was treated as the possession of the persons for whom they acted, and they, like express trustees, were disabled from taking advantage of the time bar. But the position in this respect of a constructive trustee in the usual sense of the words – that is to say, of a person who, though he had taken possession in his own right, was liable to be declared a trustee in a Court of equity – was widely different, and it had long been settled that time ran in his favour from the moment of his so taking possession. This rule is illustrated by the well-known judgment of Sir William Grant MR in Beckford v Wade.”
(Supreme Court of Calcutta) Recognizance entered into to abide the determination of an appeal vacated upon petition of the Appellant, upon the abandonment of the appeal.

Judges:

Viscount Cave, Viscount Cave, Sumner, Parmoor LL

Citations:

[1920] AC 636, [1919] UKPC 136

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
CitedClarkson and Another v Davies and Others PC 23-Oct-1922
Ontario – Discussing the Taylor case, the Board said: ‘ . . 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 arise only by reason of that transaction.’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Equity, Litigation Practice

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.187432

First Subsea Ltd v Balltec Ltd and Others: CA 30 Mar 2017

The court considered the application of section 21 of the 1980 Act to a claim against a company director for breach of fiduciary duty.

Judges:

Patten, Kitchin, Briggs LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 186, [2017] WLR(D) 232, [2017] 3 WLR 896, [2018] Ch 25

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Company, Limitation

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.581338

Riddell v Wessex Regional Hospital Authority and Another: CA 12 Dec 1996

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Civ 1197

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.

Limitation

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.200691

Alderson, Alderson v Beetham Organisation Limited: CA 2 Apr 2003

The claimants appealed rejection of their claim as out of time under the Act. The property was constructed in 1994, but came to suffer from damp. They were advised of the defect and possible action in 1995, but failed to begin proceedings until 2001. The claimant said the limitation period began when remedial works failed.
Held: Section 1 imposes a duty of care upon builders of dwellings. 1(5) sets a limitation period of 6 years, but contains a proviso where work is done after completion ‘to rectify the work . . already done’. Parliament intended that there should be a fresh cause of action for breach of the duty to provide a dwelling fit for habitation when the further work did not rectify the original work as intended. The appeal was allowed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Judge Lord Justice Longmore

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 408, Times 19-Apr-2003, Gazette 12-Jun-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 1686

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defective Premises Act 1972 1(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedAndrews v Schooling CA 1991
The plaintiff owned a 199 year lease of premises and sought compensation under the Act damp from the cellar. The defence said the development had not included work done on the cellar and therefore section 1 did not apply.
Held: The defence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Limitation

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.180458

Iraqi Civilians v Ministry of Defence: QBD 7 Nov 2014

Over 600 Iraqi civilians brought actions in tort allegaing abuse by British armed forces during the period when British forces were present in Iraq. Directions were now addressed for settement of limitation issues.

Judges:

Leggatt J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 3686 (QB), [2014] WLR(D) 496

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, International, Limitation

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.538344

In re Pantone 485 Ltd: ChD 29 Nov 2001

The respondent Bain was a director of a number of connected companies, including Smarturgent and Pantone, both of which he indirectly controlled. The liquidator of both companies brought proceedings against Bain on a number of claims for breach of duty as a director, including that he had caused Smarturgent to spend a total of over andpound;86,000 for the benefit of Pantone. It was argued on behalf of Bain that this claim was time-barred, but the liquidator relied on section 21(1)(b).
Held: Field QC responded to the submission saying: ‘The claim against Mr Bain is not that he transferred Smarturgent’s money to himself but that he caused the company’s money to be spent not for Smarturgent’s benefit but for Pantone’s. Mr Shaw submitted that the fact that the machine was acquired and the rentals paid for the benefit of Pantone, a company in which Mr Bain had an indirect controlling interest through his shareholding in AS2 meant that he was to be regarded as having received the trust property . . In my judgment, as a matter of basic principle where a fiduciary uses his beneficiary’s money to confer a benefit on a company he controls he is denying the beneficiary’s title to the money for his own purposes and this amounts to a conversion for his own use. The same is true where a fiduciary causes his beneficiary to incur a liability for the benefit of a company which the fiduciary controls. Since this is what the applicant is in substance alleging under the MOVP claim, I hold that this claim is within section 21(1)(b) of the Limitation Act and is therefore not statute barred.’

Judges:

Richard Field QC HHJ

Citations:

[2001] EWHC 705 (Ch), [2002] 1 BCLC 266, [2001] 2 EGLR 103

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 2(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

ApprovedBurnden Holdings (UK) Ltd v Fielding and Another CA 17-Jun-2016
The company, now in liquidation sought to claim for the alledged misapplication by former directors of its funds in 2007. It now appealed against a summary rejection of its claim as time barred.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Section 21(1)(b) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Limitation

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.372690

Palfrey v Wilson and Another: CA 15 Feb 2007

The parties disputed the ownership of a wall between their properties. The claimants appealed an order finding title by adverse possession. The parties had spent a huge and disproportionate sum on legal fees in the dispute.
Held: The appeal was in effect against the award of costs. The appellant had been required to bear the bulk of costs after refusing a reasonable offer of compromise. The order was correct. Where a point would be academic to the outcome of the trial, there was no human right for a party to have that academic point decided.

Judges:

Tuckey LJ, Arden LJ, Lawrnce Collins LJ

Citations:

Times 05-Mar-2007, [2007] EWCA Civ 94

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Limitation

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.248830

Smith and Smith v Messrs Lindsay and Kirk and others: SCS 16 Dec 1999

Where a contract specifically provided that it would become unenforceable after two years from the date of the contract, an action for breach of contract, and not just an action for performance of it, was also time barred after the expiry of the agreed time. This applied even if, as in this case, the breach occurred within the two year period. The word ‘enforceable’ should not be given such a constrained meaning as to limit it to an action for performance.

Citations:

Times 16-Mar-2000, [1999] ScotCS 302

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Contract, Limitation, Contract

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.163734

Employers’ Liability Policy ‘Trigger’ Litigation; Durham v BAI (Run off) Ltd etc: QBD 21 Nov 2008

The court heard six claims against companies restored to the register of companies to make claims under their insurance policies for personal injury in the form of death from mesothelioma from asbestos, and particularly whether liability could be found under the 1930 Act. The insurers maintained that any liability arose at the time of the exposure to the asbestos, and that therefore the limitation periods had long expired. The companies and personal representatives of the employees said that liability arose only as symptoms began to appear, and that the special exception to the normal rules as to liability in negligence estabished in Fairchild, should not apply when deciding whether any causative act for which they may be responsible occurred in a particular policy year.
Held: The claims against the insurance companies failed; the relevant insurances all responded on an exposure basis. Each of the policies should be interpreted as having a ‘causation wording’, and the liability ‘trigger’ under the Employer’s Liability policy was when the employee inhaled the asbestos and not the date when the malignant lesion developed.

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2692 (QB), [2009] 2 All ER 26, [2009] 1 All ER (Comm) 805, [2009] Lloyd’s Rep IR 295

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Third Party (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930, Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedFairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and Others HL 20-Jun-2002
The claimants suffered mesothelioma after contact with asbestos while at work. Their employers pointed to several employments which might have given rise to the condition, saying it could not be clear which particular employment gave rise to the . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromEmployers’ Liability Insurance ‘Trigger’ Litigation, Re CA 8-Oct-2010
Companies restored to the register, and the personal representatives of former employees, appealed against rejection of their claims from the insurers of the former companies for damages from mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos during . .
At first instanceEmployers’ Liability Insurance ‘Trigger’ Litigation: BAI (Run Off) Ltd v Durham and Others SC 28-Mar-2012
The court considered the liability of insurers of companies now wound up for mesothelioma injuries suffered by former employees of those companies, and in particular whether the 1930 Act could be used to impose liability. The insurers now appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Company, Limitation

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.278222

Aldi Stores Ltd v Holmes Buildings Plc: CA 1 Dec 2003

What makes a claim a ‘new claim’ as defined in section 35(2) of the Limitation Act 1980 is not the newness of the case according to the type or quantum of the remedy claimed, but the newness of the cause of action that it involves. A cause of action is a set of facts that enable one person to obtain a remedy from another; as opposed to a form of action used as a convenient and succinct description of a particular category of factual situation.

Judges:

Auld, Hale and Dyson LJJ

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1882

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 35(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and Another v Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd ChD 16-Feb-2006
The patent application had been presented to the European Patent Office and granted only after 13 years. The claimant now appealed refusal to allow amendment of its claim to allow a claim in its sole name. The defendant argued that it was out of . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Limitation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.191208

Expofrut Sa and Others v Melville Services Inc and Another: ComC 8 Jul 2015

Application by the Claimants for an extension of time of some three years and eight months in respect of the expiry of the one year Hague/Hague Visby limitation period in accordance with the terms of Arbitration Clause 19 in the relevant Charter Party incorporated by the relevant Bills of Lading. The Claimants pursued their claims in respect of damage to a consignment of fresh pears shipped from Argentina to Antwerp on board the AFRICA REEFER in the Belgian courts, which have now found that the claims were required to be brought in arbitration.

Judges:

Burton J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1950 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Arbitration, Limitation

Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.550070

IAM Group Plc v Chowdrey: CA 15 Mar 2012

Appeal against rejection of claim for possession of land subject to adverse possession claim, and against order for registration of the defendant as registered proprietor.

Judges:

Thorpe, Etherton LJJ, Ryder J

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 505

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Land Registration Act 2002 98(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Limitation, Registered Land

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452996

Hancock Shipping Limited v Kowaski Heavy Industries: CA 1992

Leave was sought by the plaintiffs to amend their points of claim in circumstances where it was common ground that the amendments would introduce new causes of action which, if brought in new proceedings, would have been statute-barred. Held Jurisdiction to reject a second claim as arising from the same or similar facts as a previous case arises if there is a sufficient overlap between the facts supporting the original claim and those supporting the new claim. The loss of an accrued defence of limitation is a relevant consideration when considering a requested amendment to the pleadings and there is a burden of persuasion on the applicant to satisfy the court of the justice of allowing an amendment having that effect.
Staughton LJ said: ‘In my judgment it is not helpful to speak of the burden of proof, but rather of the burden of persuasion. If the court concludes that it cannot decide whether or not it is just to allow the amendment, the party applying for leave must fail. … But the party making the application cannot be expected to adduce evidence on all points which might conceivably affect the justice of the case.’

Judges:

Staughton LJ, Kerr LJ

Citations:

[1992] 1 WLR 1025

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTabarrok v E D C Lord and Co (A Firm) CA 14-Feb-1997
The appellant wanted to open a pizza restaurant. He and his partners acquired a company for the purpose, which was to take a lease of premises. They sought advice from the defendants who, they said, failed to advise them of the need to be aware of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Limitation

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.271022