Category: Limitation

David T Morrison and Co Ltd v ICL Plastics Ltd and Others: SCS 9 Mar 2012

Outer House – Opinion – In May 2004 an explosion at the defenders factory caused nine deaths. A pipeline carrying LPG gas had not been assessed for risks. Morrison owned neighbouring premises which were damaged. They began an action for damages. The defenders said that the claim was out of time, but the claimants said that the period for prescription did not begin until the creditor could reasonably have known that the defender might be at fault.
Held: The defence succeeded, applying the doctrine res ipsa loquitur in this particular situation. Under section 11(3) it was the pursuer who must show that it did not have actual or constructive awareness that loss caused by negligence had occurred. The question was whether Morrison knew, or could using reasonable diligence have found out, that it had a stateable prima facie claim arising out of the explosion. The identity of the obligant, the prospects of success and the precise extent of the damage were not relevant. The explosion within ICL’s factory allowed a presumption of negligence in accordance with the principle of res ipsa loquitur. In the absence of any explanation for the explosion, Morrison was entitled to infer that the owner and occupier was responsible for the explosion.

Judges:

Lord Woolman

Citations:

[2012] ScotCS CSOH – 44, 2012 SLT 813, 2012 GWD 12-236, 2012 Rep LR 118

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

See Also – ICL Plastics Ltd and Others, Re Application for Judicial Review SCS 11-Mar-2005
The applicants were concerned at the decision to exclude them from their premises to investigate the cause of an explosion leading to the collapse of the factory. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – David T Morrison and Co Ltd (T/A Gael Home Interiors) v ICL Plastics Ltd and Another SCS 14-Mar-2013
Extra Division – Inner House – An explosion at the defenders’ neighbouring premises had damaged those of the pursuer. The defenders now appealed against a finding that the claim was out of time calculated from the time when it had sufficient . .
At Outer House – David T Morrison and Co Ltd (T/A Gael Home Interiors) v ICL Plastics Ltd and Others SC 30-Jul-2014
The claimant sought damages after an explosion at the defender’s nearby premises damaged its shop. The defender said that the claim was out of time, and now appealed against a decision that time had not begun to run under the 1973 Act.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Health and Safety, Negligence

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.452213

Lewis and Others v Ward Hadaway (A Firm): ChD 21 Dec 2015

The claimants were said to have chosen to understate their claim in order to reduce court fees, but lodged the claim within the limitation period. After that period expired, the amended the claim and paid the extra fees. The defendant said this was an abuse of process and that the claim had not accordingly been issued in time.
Held: The rules required that the claim be lodged with the appropriate fee. That had not occurred here and the claimants were guilty of abuse of process. The claim was out of time.

Judges:

John Male QC sitting as a deputy High Court judge

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 3503 (Ch), [2015] WLR(D) 551, [2016] 4 WLR 6, [2016] 1 Costs LO 49

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Limitation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.558299

Zinda v ARK Academies (Schools): QBD 16 Dec 2011

The claimant appealed against summary dismissal of his claim for defamation, the action being dismissed a being out of time, and without merit. Other actions had been begun and either dismissed or compromised arising from the circumstances surrounding the dismisal of the claimant by the defendant.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 3394 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Defamation, Limitation

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.450083

London Borough of Lambeth v Blackburn: CA 10 Apr 2001

Renewed application for leave to appeal – granted.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 668

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Full Appeal – London Borough of Lambeth v Blackburn CA 14-Jun-2001
The appellant had broken into an empty council owned flat, and subsequently occupied it. After twelve years the authority obtained a court order for possession. The court had held that the appellant had not had a sufficient animus possidendi since . .

Cited by:

Grant of Leave – London Borough of Lambeth v Blackburn CA 14-Jun-2001
The appellant had broken into an empty council owned flat, and subsequently occupied it. After twelve years the authority obtained a court order for possession. The court had held that the appellant had not had a sufficient animus possidendi since . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.218116

Marks and Spencer plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: ECJ 11 Jul 2002

The claimant challenged the reduction of the limitation period from six years to three for the reclaiming of overpaid VAT with immediate effect, depriving it of the opportunity to recover sums paid in excess. The company sold vouchers. It paid VAT as directed by the Commissioners after challenge, but would have sought to reclaim sums overpaid after a decision of the European Court.
Held: Such a withdrawal was contrary to Community law. Limitation laws must be reasonable, and appropriate transitional provisions were needed. It would not be correct for individuals to be able rely on a Directive where it had been implemented incorrectly but not to be able to do so where the national authorities applied national measures correctly implementing the Directive in a manner incompatible with it.

Judges:

P Jann, President of Chamber and Judges D. A. O. Edward and A. La Pergola Advocate General L. A. Geelhoed

Citations:

Times 20-Jul-2002, C-62/00, [2002] STC ECJ 1036, [2002] EUECJ C-62/00, [2002] BVC 622, [2003] 2 WLR 665, [2002] STI 1009, [2002] ECR I-6325, [2002] STC 1036, [2002] BTC 5477, [2003] QB 866, [2002] 3 CMLR 9, [2002] CEC 572, EU:C:2002:435, ECLI:EU:C:2002:435

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 1997 47(1) 47(2)

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Reference from – Marks and Spencer Plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 19-Jan-2000
The doctrine of direct effect which gave rise for a private individual against a member state could only operate where the member failed to comply with the requirements of European Law to give effect to such law, and the requirement to put such . .
Opinion – Marks and Spencer v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 11-Jul-2002
ECJ Sixth VAT directive – National legislation retroactively curtailing a limitation period for repayment of sums unduly paid – Compatibility with the principles of effectiveness and of the protection of . .

Cited by:

Referred to – Marks and Spencer Plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 19-Jan-2000
The doctrine of direct effect which gave rise for a private individual against a member state could only operate where the member failed to comply with the requirements of European Law to give effect to such law, and the requirement to put such . .
Cited – DFS Furniture Company Plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 16-Mar-2004
The taxpayers said that the Commissioners’ assessment to VAT was out of time, and appealed a finding that it was not. They said that time should run from the point at which the Commissioners knew the facts upon which the assessment was based. The . .
Cited – Fleming (T/A Bodycraft) v Revenue and Customs HL 23-Jan-2008
The transitional rules introducing time limits for failing to deduct VAT inputs made insufficient allowance for the decisions in Marks and Spencer and Grundig.
Held: Lord Hope said: ‘To be compatible with EU law, taxpayers were entitled to be . .
Judgment on first reference – Marks and Spencer Plc v Customs and Excise HL 4-Feb-2009
The taxpayer requested refund of VAT overpaid on chocolate covered cakes. The CandE resisted saying that the money had been substantially already paid by its customers. The case had been referred twice to the ECJ, who answered that the maintenance . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v The Rank Group Plc SC 8-Jul-2015
The question raised by this appeal is whether, during the period 1 October 2002 to 5 December 2005, the takings on a particular category of gaming machines operated by the appellants were subject to VAT. The answer depends on whether the takings . .
Cited – Littlewoods Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs SC 1-Nov-2017
The appellants had overpaid under a mistake of law very substantial sums in VAT over several years. The excess had been repaid, but with simple interest and not compound interest, which the now claimed (together with other taxpayers amounting to 17 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Limitation

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.174364

Fantask and others v Industriministeriet: ECJ 2 Dec 1997

ECJ Directive 69/335/EEC – Registration charges on companies – Procedural time-limits under national law.

Citations:

C-188/95, [1997] EUECJ C-188/95, [1997] ECR-1 6783

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 69/335/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Walker-Fox v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 29-Nov-2005
The claimant pensioner had moved to France. He sought to claim a retrospective winter fuel allowance claim. The government had eventually agreed to make payments to UK residents abroad.
Held: The claimant was deemed to have had knowledge of . .
Cited – Littlewoods Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs SC 1-Nov-2017
The appellants had overpaid under a mistake of law very substantial sums in VAT over several years. The excess had been repaid, but with simple interest and not compound interest, which the now claimed (together with other taxpayers amounting to 17 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Limitation

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.161611

Palmisani v Instituto Nazionale della Previdenze Sociale (INPS): ECJ 10 Jul 1997

(Judgment) (Rec 1997,p I-4025) Social policy – Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer – Council Directive 80/987/EEC – Liability of a Member State arising from belated transposition of a directive – Adequate reparation – Limitation period

Citations:

C-261/95, [1997] EUECJ C-261/95, [1997] ECR I-4025

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 80/987/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Littlewoods Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs SC 1-Nov-2017
The appellants had overpaid under a mistake of law very substantial sums in VAT over several years. The excess had been repaid, but with simple interest and not compound interest, which the now claimed (together with other taxpayers amounting to 17 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Limitation, Insolvency

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.161651

Brooksbank v Smith: 24 Feb 1836

In this case, trustees under a will, who were solicitors, had by mistake transferred stock to a person not entitled. Baron Alderson said, this being under circumstances of mistake, it appeared clear to him that the Plaintiffs were entitled to equitable relief ; for, on looking into the authorities he found that fraud or mistake were each of them grounds for relief in equity. Then came the question, whether the Statute of Limitations was a bar? The Statute of Limitations did not apply to Courts of Equity so as to bind them, Undoubtedly, they had exercised discretion, and very rightly, upon the rules laid down. For instance, in cases of fraud, Courts of Equity did not apply the rule in the same manner as Courts of law, which were so bound by the words of the statute, that if the cause of action bad occurred more than six years before, however equitabIe it might be, they could not permit the statute to run. Courts of Equity held, that in cases of fraud, the statute of Limitations ran from the discovery of the fraud, It appearet to jim that cases of mistake fell under the same rule, and that it would be inequitable to apply the Statute of Limitations, except in cases where a party had lain by after the mistake had been discovered, more than six years ; in this case the mistake had been discovered within six years, the statute did not, therefore, bar the Plaintiff’s claim.

Judges:

Baron Alderson

Citations:

[1836] EngR 447, (1836) Donn Eq 11, (1836) 47 ER 193 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Smith v Brooksbank 25-Jun-1834
A bequeathed a reversionary interest, expectant on his wife’s death, in a sum of stock to B. B. bequeathed it to C., and C. bequeathed it to D, who, on the death of A’s wife, filed a bill against the trustees to have the stock transferred to him, . .

Cited by:

See Also – Brooksbank And Another v Smith 24-Feb-1836
The testatrix died in 1818 leaving a fund in trust, subject to a life interest, for her children in equal shares, with substitutional gifts if any child predeceased her leaving issue. Her daughter Elizabeth did predecease her by two months, but on . .
Cited – Test Claimants In The Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Inland Revenue SC 23-May-2012
The European Court had found the UK to have unlawfully treated differently payment of franked dividends between subsidiaries of UK companies according to whether all the UK subsidiaries were themselves UK based, thus prejudicing European . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Equity, Limitation

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.314779

Fraser and Another v Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance and others: HL 27 Oct 2005

Land had been acquired by a deed under the 1841 Act, but had in 1995 ceased to be used as a school ‘for the education of children and adults of the labouring manufacturing and other poorer classes . . And for no other purpose ‘. Under the Act, the land would revert to the claimants as beneficiaries of the original grantors. The respondent ‘DBF’ argued that the claim had been lost by limitation because the land hac been used for other purposes (the education of children from outside the district and middle-class children) before the 1987 Act came into force, and that they became successors to the school trustees for uses beyond the deed, which brought the reverter.
Held: The reverters’ appeal succeeded and their claim restored. The trustees acquired the school for the purposes of the 1841 Act, not only under the explicit declaration in the deed. There might be a claim for breach of the caritable trusts but no further. There was moreover insufficient evidence to allow an inference of breach of trust. The CA had been wrong to interpret the judge’s findings of fact in the way they had.

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Citations:

[2005] 3 WLR 964, Times 31-Oct-2005, [2005] UKHL 65, [2006] 1 All ER 315

Links:

Bailii, House of Lords

Statutes:

School Sites Act 1841, Reverter of Sites Act 1987 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Attorney General v Shadwell 1910
Land in Northholt was granted under the 1841 Act for use as a school. In 1907 the school was closed, another school having been opened by the local authority nearby. Thereafter the building was used only once a week for a Sunday school. The Board of . .
Cited – In re Ingleton Charity 1956
The effect of section 2 of the 1841 Act is that if a reverter occurred but the trustees of the school remain in possession for 12 years, the title by reverter will usually become statute-barred. . .
Appeal from – Fraser and Fraser v Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance Integrated Services Programme CA 28-Jan-2004
The claimants sought a reversion of land conveyed under the 1841 Act to trustees. The defendants (‘DBF’) as succesors to the trustees argued that by extending the range of pupils in the school, the trustees acquired a title independent of and . .
At first instance – Fraser and Another v Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance and Another Chd 14-May-2003
The claimants sought to assert that land acquired under the 1841 Act reverted to them on its ceasing to be used for the purposes of a school. Lewison J summarised the evidence: ‘An analysis of the school registers for 1931 to 1947 shows that the . .
Cited – Habermehl v Attorney General 1996
Land was granted for use as a school for the education of poor persons in accordance with the principles of the National Society. In 1876 the school had become a ‘provided school’ run by a School Board under the Education Act 1870. That meant that, . .
Cited – National Society v School Board of London 1874
The National Society raised large sums by subscription and made grants in favour of schools in which children were to be instructed (in addition to reading, writing and arithmetic) in holy scripture and in the liturgy and catechism of the . .
Cited – Clavering v Ellison 1859
Any provision determining or divesting an estate held on trust ‘must be such that the Court can see from the beginning, precisely and distinctly, upon the happening of what event it was that the preceding vested estate was to determine’ . .
Cited – In Re Cawston’s Conveyance and the School Sites Act 1841 CA 1940
The 1841 Act was intended to encourage land owners to make land available for educational purposes: ‘One can see that the provision with regard to reverter would have been and no doubt was considered by the Legislature to be a very useful . .
Cited – In re Lysaght (deceased) 1966
A general charitable purpose (or intention) should be recognised and given effect to, even though some particular directions given by the charity’s founder are (or become) impracticable. . .
Cited – Clayton v Ramsden HL 1943
A condition in the will was that the legatee, his daughter, should not marry a person ‘not of Jewish parentage and of the Jewish faith.’
Held: The condition was void for uncertainty. Lord Russell of Killowen said: ‘The courts have always . .
Cited – Fraser and Another v Canterbury Diocesan Board Of Finance (No 1) CA 24-Nov-2000
A grant of land was made under the 1841 Act in 1872 (after the 1870 Act) and the school had in 1874 been transferred to a school board under section 23 of the 1870 Act. The school closed permanently in 1992. The issue was whether reverter had . .
Cited – Fraser and Another v Canterbury Diocesan Board of Finance ChD 22-Feb-2000
Where land had been acquired under the Act on trusts related specifically to the provision of education in accordance with a specified religion, the abandonment by the school of that purpose meant that the land reverted immediately to the original . .

Cited by:

Cited – St Mary and St Michael Parish Advisory Company Ltd v The Westminster Roman Catholic Diocese Trustee, Her Majesty’s Attorney Genera and others ChD 6-Apr-2006
Parish members objected to the building within the church grounds of an education centre. They said that the land was to be used for the purposes of the members of the parish only under a trust deed of 1851.
Held: The deed had to be construed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation, Trusts

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.231606

Beaulane Properties Ltd v Palmer: ChD 23 Mar 2005

The paper owner sought possession of land. The defendant said he had acquired a possessory title. The land was registered.
Held: The claimant’s human rights under article 1 were engaged. To be justifiable, the interference in that right had to be ‘in the public interest’. The limitation rules were enacted by the State for public purposes, to achieve certainty and to prevent the court having to adjudicate on stale claims. In land claims the rules had wider purposes than to regulate as between owner and trespasser. The effect on land claims was to deprive the land owner of his land. The state had a wide margin. When the Land Registration system was enacted the main considerations included matters such as adjustment of boundaries. However ‘the expropriation of registered land withouty compensation in the circumstances of this case did not advance any of the legitimate aims of the statutory provisions and was disproportionate’ The claimant’s loss of his land under section 75 of the 1925 Act was disproportionate.

Judges:

Nicholas Strauss QC

Citations:

Times 13-Apr-2005, (2005) 14 EGCS 129, [2005] EWHC 817 (Ch), [2006] Ch 79

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 81, Land Registration Act 1925 75

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Tower Hamlets v Barrett and Another CA 19-Jul-2005
The defendant tenants appealed an order for them to surrender possession of land which they claimed had been acquired by adverse possession. The buildings, including one which shared a party wall with the building owned by the defendants had been . .
Cited – J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-2005
The claimants had been the registered proprietors of land, they lost it through the adverse possession of former tenants holding over. They claimed that the law had dispossessed them of their lawful rights.
Held: The cumulative effect of the . .
No longer correct – Ofulue 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 . .
Cited – Lancashire County Council v Buchanan Admn 7-Nov-2007
The defendant estate agent was prosecuted for misdescribing the ability of his client to convey good title to the land offered. The seller did not initially have a registered possessory title to part of the land.
Held: The agent’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Land, Limitation, Registered Land, Limitation

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.224111

The Secretary of State for Transport v Arriva Rail East Midlands Ltd (‘Arriva’): CA 18 Dec 2019

Applicable time limit for the bringing of claims arising out of a public procurement process which is not governed by the Public Contracts (and similar) Regulations. It raises the stark contrast between the 3-month time limit required for an application for judicial review, and the 6-year limit for a claim for breach of statutory duty provided by the Limitation Act 1980.

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 2259

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Limitation

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.645866

Khader v Aziz and Another: QBD 31 Jul 2009

The defendant sought to strike out a claim in defamation. Acting on behalf of his client the solicitor defendant was said to have called a journalist and defamed the claimant. The words were denied.
Held: Assuming (which was denied) that the allegations made by the claimant were true as to what had happened, the claimant still had no answer to a defence of qualified privilege by the second defendant. The particulars pleaded by the appellant were insufficient to satisfy the requirements of establishing malice. The claim was struck out. The defendant would also have an insurmountable defence of limitation.

Judges:

Eady J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2027 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Baker v Carrick 1894
Letters written by a solicitor in the performance of his or her duties to a client of the firm to a person with an appropriate interest in receiving it attract qualified privilege. Publication by a solicitor is protected by qualified privilege if . .
Cited – Adam v Ward HL 1917
The plaintiff, Major Adam MP, falsely attacked General Scobell in a speech in the House of Commons, thus bringing his charge into the national arena. The Army Council investigated the charge, rejected it and directed their secretary, Sir E Ward, the . .
Cited – Regan v Taylor CA 9-Mar-2000
The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant, his then opponent’s solicitor. He now appealed summary judgment against him.
Held: A solicitor properly appointed by his client to represent his client in legal proceedings and responding to . .
Cited – C 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: . .
Cited – Somerville v Hawkins 1851
It is necessary for a claimant who wishes to prove malice in an alleged defamation to plead and prove facts which are more consistent with its presence than with its absence. Mawle J said: ‘it is certainly not necessary in order to enable a . .
Cited – Telnikoff v Matusevitch CA 1991
The court considered the element of malice in a defamation defence: ‘If a piece of evidence is equally consistent with malice and the absence of malice, it cannot as a matter of law provide evidence on which the jury could find malice. The judge . .
Cited – Spring v Guardian Assurance Plc and Others CA 1993
The test for malice is the same whether it arises in the context of libel or of injurious falsehood. Glidewell LJ said that ‘Maliciously’ in this context means either knowing that the words were false or being reckless as to whether they were false . .
Cited – Watts v Times Newspapers Ltd, Neil, Palmer and Schilling and Lom CA 28-Jul-1995
The plaintiff author had claimed damages for defamation, saying that he had been accused of plagiarism. An apology had been given in the form requested – no qualified privilege. The plaintiff brought an associated case against his lawyer, saying . .
Cited – Alexander v Arts Council of Wales CA 9-Apr-2001
In a defamation action, where the judge considered that, taken at their highest, the allegations made by the claimant would be insufficient to establish the claim, he could grant summary judgment for the defence. If the judge considered that a . .
Cited – Lonrho Plc and Others v Fayed and Others (No 5) CA 27-Jul-1993
Defamatory statements causing pecuniary loss may give rise to an action in tort only. The boundaries set by the tort of defamation are not to be side-stepped by allowing a claim in contract that would not succeed in defamation. A claimant cannot, by . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Khader v Aziz and Others CA 23-Jun-2010
The claimant brought defamation proceedings after she had found and returned a valuable necklace belonging to the first respondent. The claim had been dismissed as an abuse of process.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed: ‘there is such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Limitation

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.368660

The Firestone Tire and Rubber Company (SS) Limited v Singapore Harbour Board: PC 10 Jun 1952

(Singapore) The parties disputed liability for damage to 17 tyres belonging to the plaintiff received in the harbour operated by the defendant but never delivered. The defendant claimed the protection of an Ordinance requiring any claim to be made within six months. To claim that protection, the defendant had to establish that in receiving the tyres, it was doing an act ‘in pursuance of any public duty or authority’.
Held: The Company’s appeal failed.
To claim the defence, the act must be in the discharge of a public duty. In deciding this it will sometimes be relevant go ask whether the contract had been entered into voluntarily but the existence of a contract as such is not decisive to exclude the defence. Some effect must be given to the word ‘authority’.
In this case, the Board was under a duty to provide the harbour services, and these included warehousing as a normal adjunct.

Judges:

Mormand, Tucker, Asquith of Bishopstone, Cohen LL

Citations:

[1952] UKPC 17, 50 LGR 619, [1952] 1 TLR 1625, [1952] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1, [1952] AC 452, [1952] 2 All ER 219

Links:

Bailii

Commonwealth, Transport, Limitation, Administrative

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445963

Gold v Mincoff Science and Gold (A Firm): CA 19 Jul 2002

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1157

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal From – Gold v Mincoff Science and Gold ChD 18-Jan-2001
A sleeping partner in a business executed several charges over partnership property, unaware that the funds raised were being used for purposes other than the partnership business. Their solicitors admitted negligence in not advising them . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Limitation

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.217405

Theresa Libra, The Owners of The Ship v Ship MSC Pamela, The Owners of The Ship: AdCt 19 Sep 2013

The parties had entered into an agreement apportioning liability after a collision between two ships, but without settling the sums involved. The defendanats now asserted that the claim was out of time under the 1995 Act.

Judges:

Teare J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 2792 (Admlty)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Merchant Shipping Act 1995 190

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Limitation

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.515321

Port Jackson Stevedoring Pty. Limited v Salmond and Spraggon (Australia) Pty. Limited: PC 10 Jul 1980

(Australia) Lord Wilbeforce said: ‘A breach of a repudiatory character . . entitles the innocent party, unless he waives the breach, to claim to be released from further performance of his obligations under the contract. So far their Lordships of course agree. One of these obligations, counsel proceeded to argue, was to bring any action on the breach within a period of one year, and the innocent party was released from his obligations. An alternative way of putting it was that the bringing of suit within a year was a condition with which the innocent party was obliged to comply; the repudiatory breach discharged this condition.
Their Lordships’ opinion on these arguments is clear. However adroitly presented, they are unsound, and indeed unreal.
Moreover it is quite unreal to equate this [limitation clause] with those provisions in the contract which relate to performance. It is a clause which comes into operation when contractual performance has become impossible, or has been given up; then, it regulates the manner in which liability for breach of contract is to be established. In this respect their Lordships found it relevantly indistinguishable from an arbitration clause, or a forum clause, which, on clear authority, survive a repudiatory breach. . . Counsel for the consignee appealed for support to some observations by Lord Diplock in Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] 1 All ER 556 at 566-567, [1980] 2 WLR 283, 294-295, where reference is made to putting an end ‘to all primary obligations . . remaining unperformed’. But these words were never intended to cover such ‘obligations’ . . as arise when primary obligations have been put an end to. There then arise, on his Lordship’s analysis, secondary obligations which include an obligation to pay monetary compensation. Whether these have been modified by agreement is a matter of construction of the contract. The analysis, indeed, so far from supporting the consignee’s argument, is directly opposed to it. Their Lordships are of the opinion that, on construction and analysis, [the limitation provision] plainly operates to exclude.’

Judges:

Lord Wilberforce

Citations:

[1981] 1 WLR 138, [1980] UKPC 23, [1980] 3 All ER 257, [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 317

Links:

Bailii

Commonwealth, Contract, Limitation

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.444009

National 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.

Judges:

Slade LJ

Citations:

[1991] Ch 339, [1990] 2 WLR 1084, [1990] 2 All ER 416, [1990] 134 SJ 28

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – WT Lamb and Sons v Rider CA 1948
An interlocutory order is generally not regarded as final in the sense of barring a further application on the ground of res judicata: ‘Execution is essentially a matter of procedure – machinery which the Court can, subject to the rules from time to . .
Applied – Surrendra Overseas Ltd v Government of Sri Lanka 1977
A debtor can only be held to have acknowledged the claim if he has in effect admitted his legal liability to pay that which the plaintiff seeks to recover. An acknowledgement of part only of a debt cannot operate to acknowledge more.
Kerr J . .

Cited by:

Applied – 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 . .
Cited – National 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.

Banking, Limitation

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.183482

NA v Nottinghamshire County Council: CA 12 Nov 2015

Appeal against finding that a local authority was not responsible for the sexual abuse of the appellant whilst with foster carers as a child.
Held: As to whether the duty as non-delegable, such a duty must relate to a function which the local authority had assumed a duty to perform. Fostering was not a function which the local authority could perform: it must be entrusted to others. By placing the child with foster parents, the local authority discharged rather than delegated their duty under section 21 of the 1980 Act to provide accommodation and maintenance for a child in their care
In relation to vicarious liability, Tomlinson LJ considered that the local authority did not exercise sufficient control over the foster parents for vicarious liability to arise. The provision of family life could not be part of the activity of the local authority or of the enterprise upon which they were engaged, because inherent in it was a complete absence of external control over day to day family routine. The control retained by the local authority was at the ‘higher or macro level’, as opposed to ‘micro-management of the day to day family environment’. It was therefore ‘irrelevant to the risk of abuse occurring during the unregulated course of life in the foster home’.
Black LJ also rejected the imposition of vicarious liability, for reasons similar to those of Tomlinson LJ.
Burnett LJ agreed with both judgments as to vicarious liability.
Burnett LJ considered that the relevant duty was the duty of the local authority to care for the child: to promote her welfare and to protect her from harm, so far as reasonably practicable. If, applying the principles summarised in the Christian Brothers case, there was no vicarious liability for an assault upon a child in care, then in his view the common law should not impose liability via the route of a non-delegable duty. He also doubted whether a claim for breach of a non-delegable duty could arise in consequence of an intentional wrong
Black LJ broadly agreed with the judge. The local authority delegated to the foster parents the obligation to care for the claimant as a parent or guardian would, which was an integral part of the positive duty which they had assumed towards her. Like the judge, however, she also considered that it would not be fair, just or reasonable to impose a non-delegable duty on the local authority. In that regard, in addition to the resource implications of the imposition of strict liability for torts committed by foster parents, she also emphasised the risk that local authorities would be reluctant to place children in their care with foster parents, or with their own parents, if a non-delegable duty were imposed. Like Burnett LJ, she noted that the duties of local authorities were assimilated by section 10(2) of the 1980 Act to those of parents, and observed that parents were not subject to a non-delegable duty. Unlike Burnett LJ, she did not treat the absence of vicarious liability as bearing on the question whether there was a non-delegable duty, and she questioned the idea that a non-delegable duty could not be breached by deliberate wrongdoing

Judges:

Black, Tomlinson, Burnett LJJ

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 1139, [2016] 2 WLR 1455, [2015] WLR(D) 457, [2016] PTSR 580, [2016] Fam Law 171, [2016] QB 739, [2016] 1 FCR 419, [2016] 2 FLR 1050

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – NA v Nottinghamshire County Council QBD 2-Dec-2014
The claimant said that as a child the defendant had failed in its duty to protect her from her abusive mother and later from foster parents.
Held: Males J, dealt with the issues of liability and limitation, leaving issues concerning causation . .
Cited – New South Wales v Lepore 6-Feb-2003
Austlii (High Court of Australia) 1. Appeal allowed in part
2. Paragraph 2 of the order of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales made on 23 April 2001 set aside, and in its place, order that the judgment . .
Cited – Woodland v Essex County Council SC 23-Oct-2013
The claimant had been seriously injured in an accident during a swimming lesson. She sought to claim against the local authority, and now appealed against a finding that it was not responsible, having contracted out the provision of swimming . .

Cited by:

See Also – Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council QBD 15-Nov-2016
Application to set aside anonymity order granted in earlier proceedings alleging sexual abuse. . .
At CA – Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council SC 18-Oct-2017
The claimant had been abused as a child by foster parents with whom she had been placed by the respondent authority. The court was now asked, the Council not having been negligent, were they in any event liable having a non-delegable duty of care . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Vicarious Liability, Limitation

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.554610

Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) and Another v Young: CA 14 Nov 2006

The claimant sought damages saying that he had been abused as a child whilst in the defendant’s care. The defendants appealed a finding that the claimant had not first known of his injury more than three years before begining his action.
Held: The same word ‘reasonable’ in sections 14(2) and 14(3) of the 1980 Act was to be interpreted in the same way, and the words ‘sufficiently serious’ in 14(2) were pivotal. Whether the test was passed was a question of fact in the case. In this case, the claimant knew that the injuries were significant in December 1996, and his claim was time-barred.

Judges:

Buxton LJ, Dyson LJ, Sir Peter Gibson

Citations:

Times 22-Nov-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 1534, [2003] QB 1441, [2007] 1 All ER 895, [2007] 2 WLR 1192, [2007] PIQR P15

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Adams 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 . .
Cited – KR and others v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd and Another CA 12-Feb-2003
The respondent appealed decisions by the court to allow claims for personal injury out of time. The claims involved cases of sexual abuse inflicted by its employees going back over many years.
Held: The judge had misapplied the test laid down . .

Cited by:

Cited – McCoubrey 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 . .
Appeal from – A v Hoare HL 30-Jan-2008
Each of six claimants sought to pursue claims for damages for sexual assaults which would otherwise be time barred under the 1980 Act after six years. They sought to have the House depart from Stubbings and allow a discretion to the court to extend . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Torts – Other

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.246007

Awoyomi v Radford and Another: QBD 12 Jul 2007

The claimant sought damages from the defendant barristers who had represented her in criminal proceedings. They had not passed on to her the statement made by the judge in chambers that if she pleaded guilty he would not impose a sentence of imprisonment, but sought to persuade her to change her plea. When she did not do so, they withdrew from the case. The barristers denied negligence, but also said that the claim was out of time. The claimant said that her claim only became possible after the protection of barristers against actions in negligence was removed.
Held: The loss of immunity from suit was retrospective from 1991, and therefore time had begun to run, and the claim was statute barred.

Judges:

Lloyd Jones J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1671 (QB), Times 23-Jul-2007, [2008] 3 WLR 34, [2008] QB 793

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Regina v Awoyomi CACD 14-Jan-1997
The defendant appealed against her conviction and sentence. The court had refused to admit medical evidence that she might be unfit to continue her trial.
Held: It would be rare to admit evidence which might support a Ghosh direction. The . .
Cited – Hedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd HL 28-May-1963
Banker’s Liability for Negligent Reference
The appellants were advertising agents. They were liable themselves for advertising space taken for a client, and had sought a financial reference from the defendant bankers to the client. The reference was negligent, but the bankers denied any . .
Cited – Saif Ali v Sydney Mitchell and Co (a Firm) HL 1978
Extent of Counsel’s Immunity in Negligence
The House considered the extent of a barrister’s immunity from action in negligence, and particularly whether it covered pre-trial acts or omissions in connection with civil proceedings.
Held: A barrister’s immunity from suit extended only to . .
Cited – Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council etc HL 29-Jul-1998
Right of Recovery of Money Paid under Mistake
Kleinwort Benson had made payments to a local authority under swap agreements which were thought to be legally enforceable when made. Subsequently, a decision of the House of Lords, (Hazell v. Hammersmith and Fulham) established that such swap . .
Cited – Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc v Inland Revenue and Another HL 25-Oct-2006
The tax payer had overpaid Advance Corporation Tax under an error of law. It sought repayment. The revenue contended that the claim was time barred.
Held: The claim was in restitution, and the limitation period began to run from the date when . .
Cited – Arthur JS Hall and Co (A Firm) v Simons; Barratt v Woolf Seddon (A Firm); Harris v Schofield Roberts and Hill (A Firm) HL 20-Jul-2000
Clients sued their solicitors for negligence. The solicitors responded by claiming that, when acting as advocates, they had the same immunities granted to barristers.
Held: The immunity from suit for negligence enjoyed by advocates acting in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Limitation

Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.254586

Kew v Bettamix Ltd and others: CA 14 Nov 2006

The defendant appealed a finding of negligence and the associated costs order.
Held: The claimant had obtained an order allowing an extension of the limitation period in order to pursue the claim. Whilst the substantial damages award should be left in place, but on the limitation issue, the claimant had failed in several respects, and the costs award should be adjusted to reflect that failure. Parties to litigation should choose carefully which points they wished to pursue, and costs awards can play a part in encouraging them so to do.

Judges:

Waller LJ VP, Leveson LJ

Citations:

Times 04-Dec-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 1535, [2007] PIQR P16, [2007] 4 Costs LR 527

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury, Limitation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.246008

Hollis and Wife, Executrix of Davies, Deceased v Palmer: 29 Apr 1836

Declaration, that the Defendant, sixteen years before, delivered his promissory note, payable on demand with interest, to the Plaintiff, but neglected to pay, except interest, which he paid up to a day within six years. Plea, that the cause of action did not accrue within six years :-Held, sufficient.

Citations:

[1836] EngR 646, (1836) 2 Bing NC 713, (1836) 132 ER 275

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Limitation

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.314978

C v Middlesbrough Council: CA 21 Dec 2004

Damages were sought following sex abuse whilst in care.

Judges:

Lord Justice Chadwick Lord Justice Latham Sir Swinton Thomas

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1746

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – A v Hoare HL 30-Jan-2008
Each of six claimants sought to pursue claims for damages for sexual assaults which would otherwise be time barred under the 1980 Act after six years. They sought to have the House depart from Stubbings and allow a discretion to the court to extend . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Limitation

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.220521

Heath Lambert Limited v Sociedad De Corretaje De Seguros, Banesco Seguros Ca: CA 25 Jun 2004

Out of various claims under insurances, one claim, for the payment of a premium on a policy of reinsurance remained. It provided that it was payable 90 days after the contract and in cash.
Held: The words indicated that the obligation to pay began not with the contract but after the expiry of the 90 day period. Accordingly, the limitation period ran from that time, and the claim remained live.

Judges:

Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Wall Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, Mr

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 792, Times 02-Jul-2004, [2005] 1 All ER 225, [2004] 1 WLR 2820

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Marine Insurance Act 1906 53(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Heath Lambert Ltd v Sociedad De Corretaje De Seguros and Another ComC 14-Oct-2003
. .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Heath Lambert Ltd v Sociedad De Corretaje De Seguros and Another ComC 14-Oct-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Limitation, Insurance

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.198413

Trilogy Management Ltd v Harcus Sinclair (A Firm): ChD 2 Feb 2016

Application by the defendant firm of solicitors, Harcus Sinclair, for an order that the Particulars of Claim and the Reply be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4 or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court on the ground, among others, that they disclose no answer to the limitation defence pleaded by Harcus Sinclair;

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 170 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Limitation

Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.559519

Smith 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 it might have arisen from the negligence now found.
Held: The court looked at whether the claimant was in a position where she should reasonably have been aware of the cause her loss: ‘what would the reasonable person have done placed in the situation of the plaintiff?’ The court accepted that her ‘individual characteristics which might distinguish her from the reasonable woman should be disregarded. Thus her fortitude, her lack of any bitterness at becoming a tetraplegic and the determination and devotion she has shown to making herself as independent and useful a member of her family and society as she can, which have surpassed what might be expected, are to be put on one side. ‘ Against this background ‘there was no basis on which the judge could accept the defendant’s submission that sometime in the 1970’s at the latest, the plaintiff should have taken advice. ‘ She was told in 1984 that she had no possible claim. The defendant had not established constructive knowledge in the plaintiff, and the appeal succeeded.

Judges:

Roch LJ, Mantell LJ and Sir Patrick Russell

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 107, [1998] Lloyd’s LR (Med) 77

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 11 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Forbes 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 – Halford 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 – 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 . .
Cited – Hartley v Birmingham City District Council CA 1992
The writ was issued one day late; there had been early notification of the claim; and the defendant’s ability to defend the case was unaffected. The plaintiff asked the court to exercide its discretion to allow the claim t proceed.
Held: The . .
Cited – Young v The Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd CA 28-Jul-1944
Court of Appeal must follow Own Decisions
The claimant was injured and received compensation. He then sought to recover again, alleging breach of statutory duty by his employers.
Held: The Court of Appeal was in general bound to follow its own previous decisions. The court considered . .
Cited – Hallam-Eames and Others v Merrett Syndicates Ltd and Others CA 25-Jan-1995
Members of Lloyd’s who faced re-insurance underwriting liabilities alleged negligence on the part of the active underwriter, their members’ agents and their syndicates’ managing agents. Limitation defences were raised.
Held: Mere knowledge of . .

Cited by:

Cited – Adams 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: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.143585

Breda Fucine Meridionali v Commission: ECFI 15 Sep 1998

ECFI State aid – Article 93, paragraph 2 of the EC Treaty – Communication opening procedure – Aid not explicitly mentioned – Assistance to businesses located in disadvantaged areas – Restructuring – Recovery of aid – Limitation Period.

Citations:

T-127/96, [1998] EUECJ T-127/96

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Limitation

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433441

Eagle v Redlime Ltd: QBD 4 Apr 2011

The builder replied to a claim in negligence that it was out of time. They had built a concrete base for a kennels. The claimant said that they had not constructed proper foundations, and that he had come to know this only within the limitation period when it began to crack.

Judges:

Eder J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 838 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 14A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Limitation, Construction

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.431736

Bligh v Martin: ChD 1968

The paper owner of the disputed land had grazed cattle on it in winter, and denied that the defendant claiming adverse possession had been in continuous occupation.
Held: Even though the adverse possessor had received rent from the real owner, who had been then unaware of his ownership and became the tenant of the land, the adverse possessor could still successfully claim the land: ‘Both counsel pointed out that where land is subject to a tenancy, the landlord and the tenant have each, in correct legal parlance, possession of the land, though in different senses . . It seems to me that for the purpose of adverse possession of freehold land under the Limitation Act, 1939, the land should be regarded as in the possession of one or other of the two parties concerned, i.e. the landlord or the tenant; and it seems to me that subsection (3) designates the landlord as the relevant party for this purpose. On that footing, it follows that the plaintiff, having been in receipt of rent during this summer period, remained throughout the period in adverse possession of the land’.
With an intention to control the land, the adverse possessor actually believing himself or herself to be the true owner, is quite sufficient. Pennycuick J said: ‘It would, I think, be quite wrong to regard the owner of arable farmland as having been dispossessed of that land because during certain winter months he personally makes no use of it and some other person puts cattle upon it.’

Judges:

Pennycuick J

Citations:

[1968] 1 All ER 1157, [1968] 1 WLR 804

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Zarb and Another v Parry and Another CA 15-Nov-2011
The parties disputed the position of the boundary between their neighbouring properties. The appellant Z had succeeded in establishing that the the boundary was as they decribed on paper, but the respondents had succeeded in their claim for adverse . .
Cited – Chambers v London Borough of Havering CA 20-Dec-2011
The defendant appealed against an order for him to surrender possession of land he had claimed by adverse possession. The Council was the registered proprietor. The defendant said he had used the land since 1981 for dumping of motor vehicle parts. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Limitation

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.449373

Butters and Another v Hayes: CA 25 Feb 2021

‘Does the non-payment of a court fee mean that time continues to run for limitation purposes in respect of a new claim within existing proceedings? In my view it does not. If a new claim which is not otherwise abusive is made by amendment within the limitation period, it will not later become time-barred because a requisite court fee had not been paid.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Jackson

Citations:

[2021] EWCA Civ 252

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 35

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Limitation

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.658875

Stonham v Ramrattan and Another: CA 16 Feb 2011

The bankrupt, while solvent had acquired a property which was first put in his own sole name, but then transferred to his wife outwardly ‘in consideration of love and affection’. Several years later, on the bankruptcy, the trustee sought to have the transaction set aside. The bankrupt, now discharged, said that in fact the original transfer to his name had been by mistake, and that the wife had paid all the purchase monies. The transfer had been found to be a forgery and a sham of no legal effect. The former bankrupt now sought to rely on the new provisions requiring a trustee’s claim to be brought within three years.
Held: The former bankrupt’s appeal failed. Under section 283A(2), in order that the interest should vest in the bankrupt, it must first be comprised in the bankrupt’s estate. Sub-section (3) provides a clear indication that the interest of which sub-section (1) speaks is an interest which is at the relevant time comprised in the estate of the bankrupt, and does not include a possible claim to recover such an interest for the benefit of the creditors whether under section 339 or under any other equivalent provision.

Judges:

Rix, Longmore, Lloyd LLJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 119, [2011] BPIR 518, [2011] 8 EG 118, [2011] 1 WLR 1617, [2011] NPC 19

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 283A, Limitation Act of 1980 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Re Yates (A Bankrupt) 2004
The court considered the application of the limitation to a claim by a trustee in bankruptcy to set aside a transaction at an undervalue.
Held: Charles J: ‘If there is a limitation period, the passages in Muir Hunter suggest that in the case . .
Cited – Lewis and Another v Metropolitan Property Realisations Ltd CA 12-Jun-2009
The bankrupts appealed against the refusal of a declaration that their home was now free of the claims of the defendants who had taken an assignment from the trustee in bankruptcy of the trustee’s interest in the house for a consideration of a share . .
Cited – Hill (As Trustee In Bankruptcy of Nurkowski) v Spread Trustee Company Ltd and Another CA 12-May-2006
The defendants sought relief for transactions entered into at an undervalue. The bankrupt had entered into charges and an assignment of a loan account in their favour before his bankruptcy, and the trustee had obtained an order for them to be set . .
Cited – Byford v Butler; In re Byford deceased ChD 10-Jun-2003
The house was owned in joint names. The husband became bankrupt, and the wife continued to pay the mortgage as to interest and capital. The trustee sought a declaration as to the ownership of the interests in the house. After the husband died, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Insolvency

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.429630

Edwards v Golding and others: CA 3 Apr 2007

The claimant appealed against an order that his claim in defamation had failed for limitation, the judge having held that time ran from publication even though the claimant did not know the identity of the author.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The court had to take two separate decisions. First had the cause of action accrued. In this case it had, on publication. Secondly, the court must ask whether to exercise its discretion to extend that period because, for example, the identity of the author was unknown.

Judges:

Buxton, Wilson, Moses LJJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 416, Times 22-May-2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 32(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Cressey v E Timm and Son Ltd and E Timm and Son Holding Ltd CA 24-Jun-2005
The claimant sought to counter a defence that his claim was out of time, saying that he had been misinformed as to the name of his employer.
Held: A person could not sue simply ‘his employer’. He must find a name, particularly as against a . .
Cited – Lloyds Investment (Scandinavia) Ltd v Ager-Hanssen ChD 15-Jul-2003
The defendant sought a variation under Part 3.1(7) of an order setting aside an earlier judgment in default of defence, on terms requiring a substantial payment into court with which the defendant, who was a litigant in person, had not complied.
Cited – Collier v Williams and others CA 25-Jan-2006
Various parties appealed refusal and grant of extensions of time for service of claim forms.
Held: The court gave detailed guidance. The three central issues were the proper construction of the rule, the question of whether the court could . .
Appeal from – Edwards v Golding and others QBD 12-Jul-2006
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Kojima v HSBC Bank Plc ChD 22-Mar-2011
The defendant had been found to owe money to the bank. In order to avoid damaging his career he agreed to execute a charge to secure the judgment. He now sought release from that order, and to withdraw his admission of the debt. He had acted in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Limitation

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.251767

Graham 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 action was out of time, since the knowledge of the defects acquired by the loss adjusters was to be imputed to the claimants.
Held: ‘The knowledge of a loss adjuster investigating and advising on a claim on behalf of insurers for the purpose of pursuing a subrogated claim by those insurers, is to be treated as the knowledge of the insurers for the purposes of s.14A(5).’

Judges:

Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice Chadwick And Mr Justice Cresswell

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1177, Times 10-Sep-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 14A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Spargo 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Limitation

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.185553

Mirza v Birmingham Health Authority: QBD 31 Jul 2001

The claimant had undergone heart surgery as an infant in 1976, and claimed damages for professional negligence. The procedure involved a dangerous procedure, a resection of coarctation. As a consequence, the Claimant suffered a number of problems associated with neurological deficit and partial paraplegia.
Held: As to limitation, the knowledge required to satisfy s.14(1)(b) is a broad knowledge of the essence of the causally relevant act or omission to which the injury is attributable. This case would require sophisticated knowledge to attribute causality. The claimant could not have known of the omissions which led to his condition. The action was not out of time. The surgeon’s actions were in accordance with what other surgeons may have done at the time, and it was claimed that the omitted actions would not have made any difference. There were simply ‘differences of opinion and practice’ at the time. The action failed.

Judges:

Justice Eady

Citations:

[2001] EWHC QB 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 11(4) 13 33

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Spargo 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 . .
Cited – Parry v Clwyd Health Authority QBD 1996
The court preferred the more objective approach as to looking at when a plaintiff was to be fixed with knowledge of his injury: ‘If the purpose of section 14(3) is to create deemed or constructive knowledge in circumstances where there is no actual . .
Applied – Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee QBD 1957
Professional to use Skilled Persons Ordinary Care
Negligence was alleged against a doctor.
Held: McNair J directed the jury: ‘Where some special skill is exercised, the test for negligence is not the test of the man on the Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test . .
Cited – Maynard v West Midlands Regional Health Authority HL 1985
The test of professional negligence is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill. Lord Scarman said: ‘a doctor who professes to exercise a special skill must exercise the ordinary skill must . .
Cited – Hucks v Cole CA 1968
(Reported 1993) A doctor failed to treat with penicillin a patient, the plaintiff, in a maternity ward. She was suffering from septic spots on her skin though he knew them to contain organisms capable of leading to puerperal fever. Several . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Limitation

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.159874

Pelagic Freezing Ltd v Lovie Construction: SCS 28 Oct 2010

Outer House

Judges:

Lord Menzies

Citations:

[2010] ScotCS CSOH – 145

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 11(3)

Cited by:

Cited – David T Morrison and Co Ltd (T/A Gael Home Interiors) v ICL Plastics Ltd and Others SC 30-Jul-2014
The claimant sought damages after an explosion at the defender’s nearby premises damaged its shop. The defender said that the claim was out of time, and now appealed against a decision that time had not begun to run under the 1973 Act.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Limitation

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.425912

Irwin and Another v Lynch and Another: CA 6 Oct 2010

The court considered an appeal against an order allowing an amendment outside the limitation period which would

Judges:

Lloyd, Wilson, Gross LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1153, [2011] Bus LR 504, [2011] BPIR 158, [2011] 1 WLR 1364

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 19.5, Limitation Act 1980 35

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Kent and Others (Liquidators of La Banque Ville-Marie) v La Communautu Des Soeurs De Charitu De La Providence and Others PC 20-Mar-1903
(Quebec) The liquidators of a bank had sued on a cause of action vested in the bank. The Canadian courts had refused leave to amend to add the bank as a plaintiff on appeal.
Held: The liquidators’ appeal succeeded. There was power to amend to . .
Cited – Parkinson Engineering Services Plc v Swan and Another CA 21-Dec-2009
The court considered the scope of the court’s power to permit an amendment as regards parties outside a limitation period. The amendment in this instance was to substitute one claimant in place of another, namely the liquidator of a company instead . .

Cited by:

Cited – Nemeti and Others v Sabre Insurance Co Ltd CA 3-Dec-2013
The court considered the power of courts to allow substitution of a new party after the expiration of the limitation period. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425552

Aktas v Adepta: CA 22 Oct 2010

The court was asked whether, when a claim was issued towards the very end of a limitation period, but was then not served, and the claim was struck out, CPR Part 7.5(1) gave a further four months in which it could be resurrected at the discretion of a judge under section 33 of the 1980 Act. Parties now appealed in cases where such an assertion had been rejected.
Rix LJ said: ‘Moreover, it should not be forgotten that one of the great virtues of the CPR is that, by providing more flexible remedies for breaches of rules as well as a stricter regulatory environment, the courts are given the powers and the opportunities to make the sanction fit the breach. That is the teaching of one of the most important early decisions on the CPR to be found in Biguzzi v Rank Leisure plc.’

Judges:

Rix, Longmore, Aikens LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1170, [2011] QB 894

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 33

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Firman v Ellis CA 1978
Writs had been issued within the limitation period, but then allowed to lapse.
Held: Section 2D gave a wide discretion to the court which was not limited to a residual class of case or to exceptional cases.
Ormrod LJ said: ‘The appellants . .
Cited – Walkley 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 – Hoddinott and others v Persimmon Homes (Wessex) Ltd CA 21-Nov-2007
The claimant had issued proceedings and the defendant filed an acknowledgement, and then argued that the court had no jurisdiction. The claimant appealed against an order declining jurisdiction.
Held: Where a party filed an acknowledgement, . .
Cited – Horton 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 . .
Cited – Hashtroodi v Hancock CA 27-May-2004
The claimant had issued proceedings in time, but then the limitation period expired before it was served, and in the meantime the limitation period had expired. The defendant appealed against an automatic extension of time for service granted to the . .
Cited – Godwin v Swindon Borough Council CA 10-Oct-2001
The claimant appealed against an order striking out his claim for personal injuries. The claim had been issued in time, but not served. An extension of time was granted, and the notice sent by first class post the day before that period expired. The . .
Cited – Vinos v Marks and Spencer plc CA 2001
The appellant claimed personal injuries. His solicitors issued a claim form within the limitation period, but only served it after the expiry of the four month period after the date of issue within which CPR 7.5 stipulated that the claim had to be . .

Cited by:

Cited – Fairclough Homes Ltd v Summers SC 27-Jun-2012
The respondent had made a personal injury claim, but had then been discovered to have wildly and dishonestly exaggerated the damages claim. The defendant argued that the court should hand down some condign form of punishment, and appealed against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Civil Procedure Rules, Personal Injury

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425467

Global Financial Recoveries Ltd v Jones: ChD 13 Jan 2000

The defendant entered into a mortgage loan. The property was repossessed and he faced an action for recovery of the shortfall. It was argued that the claim was out of time after six years. The court held that the debt remained a specialty debt and the twelve year period applied, but nevertheless, the actual claimant claimed under an assignment which had assigned only the personal element of the debt, but not the benefit of the covenant within the mortgage deed. An assignment of the debt alone operated to assign that debt, and not the right given under the mortgage, and so a claim under the assignment was limited as under contract.

Citations:

Gazette 13-Jan-2000, Times 23-Feb-2000, [2000] BPIR 1029

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – West 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.

Limitation, Land, Banking, Limitation

Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.80875

Clarkson 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.’

Citations:

[1922] UKPC 79, [1923] AC 100

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Halton 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Trusts, Limitation

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422885

BCL 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 claim.
Held: The Tribunal acted on the basis that it had a power to etend the time limit, but exercising that discretion, denied the extension.

Citations:

[2009] CAT 29

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 2, Competition Act 1998 47A

Citing:

See Also – BCL Old Co Ltd and others v Aventis Sa and others CAT 28-Jan-2005
Applications for security for costs. . .
See Also – BCL 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 Also – BCL 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 Also – BCL 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 . .

Cited by:

See Also – BCL Old Co Ltd and Others v BASF Se (Formerly BASF Ag) and Others CAT 12-Feb-2010
. .
See Also – BCL Old Co Ltd and others v Basf Se and Others CA 12-Nov-2010
. .
See Also – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commercial, European, Limitation

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421795

A v Hoare: QBD 14 Oct 2005

The defendant had been convicted and sentenced for the attempted rape of the claimant. He had subsequently won a substantial sum on the lottery, and she now sought damages. He replied that the action was statute barred being now 16 years old. The claimant said the decision to deny her claim had interfered with her human rights.
Held: The denial of the right of action to the claimant did not infringe her human rights. The court was bound by the decision in Stubbings and the claim must be dismissed.

Judges:

Jack J

Citations:

Times 27-Oct-2005, [2005] EWHC 2161 (QB), [2006] ACD 12

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 11 2, European Court of Human Rights 6.1, Administration of Justice Act 1969 12 13

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Stubbings 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 – KR and others v Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd and Another CA 12-Feb-2003
The respondent appealed decisions by the court to allow claims for personal injury out of time. The claims involved cases of sexual abuse inflicted by its employees going back over many years.
Held: The judge had misapplied the test laid down . .
Cited – Letang v Cooper CA 15-Jun-1964
The plaintiff, injured in an accident, pleaded trespass to the person, which was not a breach of duty within the proviso to the section, in order to achieve the advantages of a six-year limitation period.
Held: Trespass is strictly speaking . .
Cited – Stubbings and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Oct-1996
There was no human rights breach where the victims of sex abuse had been refused a right to sue for damages out of time. The question is whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment in law: . .
Cited – Seymour v Williams CA 1995
The plaintiff issued proceedings against her father and mother, alleging physical and sexual abuse against her father and want of parental care against her mother. The claim against the father was in trespass, but that against her mother was in . .

Cited by:

See Also – A v Hoare QBD 8-Jul-2008
The claimant sought damages for her rape by the defendant. After his conviction and having served his sentence, the defendant won substantial sums on the lottery.
Held: The sums paid by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board were not paid by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Torts – Other, Limitation, Human Rights

Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.231279

Kimathi and Others v The Foreign and Commonwealth Office: QBD 24 May 2018

The Claimants claimed damages against the Defendant for alleged abuses arising during the course of the Kenyan Emergency during the 1950s.

Judges:

Stewart J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1305 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Kimathi and Others v The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Strike out) QBD 24-Nov-2016
The defendant sought to have struck out from the group litigation, as a nullity the claim by one claimant who had been deceased at the time of issue. His PRs responded that the court could deal with the matter under CPR Pt 3.
Held: The court’s . .
See Also – Kimathi and Others v The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Cross examination request) QBD 24-Nov-2016
Application to cross examine translators of claimant witness statements. . .
See Also – Kimathi and Others v The Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 9-Feb-2017
Application notice seeking an order that certain issues be listed for hearing as a preliminary point. . .
Cited – Kimathi and Others v The Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 9-May-2018
Admissibility of extracts from Hansard . .
Cited – Kimathi and Others v The Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 18-Apr-2018
Continued dispute as to admissibility of certain documents . .

Cited by:

See Also – Kimathi and Others v The Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 2-Aug-2018
Allegations of abuse by persons for whose conduct it is alleged the Defendant is liable, arising out of the Kenyan Emergency. . .
See Also – Kimathi and Others v The Foreign and Commonwealth Office QBD 21-Nov-2018
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Torts – Other, Armed Forces

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.617216

O’Donovan v Manchester (Ringway) Airport Plc: UTLC 26 Aug 2009

COMPENSATION – limitation – Land Compensation Act 1973 – whether proceedings brought when notice of reference sent to Tribunal – whether notice of reference a nullity if failing to identify all persons interested in the land – held claim not statute barred – 1973 Act s 16, Limitation Act 1980 s 9(1), Lands Tribunal Rules 1996 rr 10 and 11

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 164 (LC), [2009] RVR 358

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Limitation

Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.415021

City and General (Holborn) Ltd v Royal and Sun Alliance Plc: CA 23 Feb 2010

Renewed application for permission to appeal from a judgment of Christopher Clarke J sitting in the Technology and Construction Court, in which he refused to extend time for service of a claim form or, more accurately, set aside the ex parte order which had been made extending that time.

Judges:

Sir Mark Potter P FD, Longmore LJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 238

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Limitation, Construction

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.407761

Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another: SC 10 May 2017

The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and indemnity risks. The grounding occurred during a combination of severe weather events. Each of the two elements was known, but they had not previously occurred together.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. There had been no breach of the safe port undertaking. Had there been a breach of that undertaking Daiichi (the sub-charterers) would not have been entitled to limit its liability through the Convention.
Lords Toulson and Mance, Lord Hodge concurring, upheld the Court of Appeal opinion that the joint insurance would have precluded any claim by owners against the demise charterer, or therefore by the latter down the line. Lord Clarke and Lord Sumption disagreed on this point.
An ‘abnormal occurrence’ has its ordinary meaning. It is not a term of art. On the evidence the combination of conditions were an abnormal occurrence and there was therefore no breach by Daiichi of the safe port undertaking.
A charterer does not assume responsibility for unexpected and abnormal events which occur suddenly and which create conditions of unsafety after he has given the order to proceed to the relevant port. These are the responsibility of the ship’s hull insurers (if owners have insured) or of owners themselves. Moreover the concept of ‘safety’ is necessarily not an absolute one.
‘there is nothing in clause 12 which provides that the demise charterers have no liability for breach of clause 29 and I see no basis for such a necessary implication, essentially for the reasons given by the judge and by Lord Sumption. In particular, it seems to me to be striking that, as the judge observed in para 195, clause 13, which contained an alternative insurance and repairs clause which not only provided that hull insurance would be paid for by the registered owner but also expressly stated that the registered owners and/or insurers would not have any rights of recovery or subrogation against the demise charterers in respect of insured losses, was deleted from the printed form. Thus the demise charterers chose not to be bound by clause 13.’
Had there been a breach of the safe port warranty, Gard claimed to be able to recover the insured value of the vessel from the time charterers as the demise charterer’s assignee on the basis that the demise charterer was liable to the owners for breach of its safe port undertaking, and so entitled to recover the same sum from the time charterer. Lords Toulson, Mance and Hodge concluded that the provisions of clause 12 of the demise charter, which provided for joint insurance and a distribution of insurance proceeds, precluded such a claim. Co-insureds cannot claim against each other in respect of an insured loss. Clause 12 provided a comprehensive scheme for an insurance funded result in the event of loss of the vessel by marine risks. The safe port undertaking did not alter this scheme.

Judges:

Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge, Lord Toulson

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 35, [2018] 1 All ER (Comm) 1, [2017] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 521, 2017 AMC 1336, [2017] 1 CLC 870, [2017] WLR(D) 333, [2017] 1 WLR 1793, [2017] Lloyd’s Rep IR 291, [2018] 1 All ER 832, UKSC 2015/0036, UKSC 2015/0037

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC Summary Video (37), SC (36), SC Summary (36), SC Summary Video (36), SC (37), SC summary (37

Statutes:

Merchant Shipping Act 1995, Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 31 32

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Leeds Shipping Co Ltd v Societe Francaise Bunge (The Eastern City) CA 1958
Non-performance, in the context of the clause, would be the refusal or failure of the ship to enter upon the charterparty’s obligations at all or the refusal or failure of the charterers to take any step to fulfil the contract into which they had . .
Cited – Compania Naviera Maropan S/A v Bowater’s Pulp and Paper Mills Limited (The Stork) CA 1954
Where, in breach of charterparty, charterers order a vessel to proceed to an unsafe port, the conduct of the vessel’s master in obeying the order (placed as he well may be, on the horns of a dilemma) will be judged sympathetically, in context and . .
Appeal from – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd CA 22-Jan-2015
The Ocean Victory went aground in a storm in Kashima port. The court was now asked (i) what, as a matter of law, was the correct test for an abnormal occurrence; (ii) in particular, was the judge correct to hold that the combination of two weather . .
At First Instance – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd and Others ComC 30-Jul-2013
The vessel ‘Ocean Victory’ grounded in 2006 entering a port in a storm.
Held: In the first action, that the intermediate charterers were liable to the demise charterers for breach of the safe port warranty in the time charter, and likewise, in . .
Cited – Reardon Smith Line Limited v Australian Wheat Board (The Houston City) PC 26-Jan-1956
(Australia) . .
Cited – Kodros Shipping Corporation of Monrovia v Empresa Cubana De Fletes (The Evia (No 2)) HL 1982
Lord Diplock regarded the nature of the contractual promise by the charterer in what he called the safe port clause as having been well settled for a quarter of a century at the very least: ‘It was correctly and concisely stated by Sellers L.J. in . .
Cited – The Saga Cob CA 1992
The fact that an event (in this case a guerrilla attack) was theoretically foreseeable did not make it an ‘normal characteristic’ of the port: ‘Be that as it may, there is no evidence whatever that the system introduced after the Omo Wonz had any . .
Cited – Ogden v Graham and Another 27-Nov-1861
The defendants chartered a ship to proceed from England to a safe port in Chilli, with laave to call at Valparaiso. On her arrival at Valparaiso; the charterers’ agent named the port of Carrisal Bajo as the port of discharge, and directed the master . .
Cited – GW Grace and Co Ltd v General Steam Navigation Co Ltd (The Sussex Oak) QBD 1950
The court considered a time charter in the Baltime form. The charterers entered into a voyage sub-charter with the board of trade. Under the voyage charter the ship loaded a cargo of timber for London from Hamburg. On the voyage to and from Hamburg . .
Cited – Transoceanic Petroleum Carriers v Cook Industries Inc (The Mary Lou) QBD 1981
Mustill J considered a charterparty which provided that the vessel was to ‘proceed to one or two safe berths one safe port US Gulf (excluding Brownsville) New Orleans/Ama/Reserve/Myrtle Grove/Destrehan counting as one port . . ‘ He said: ‘The . .
Cited – Kodros Shipping Corporation of Monrovia v Empresa Cubana De Fletes (The Evia (No 2)) CA 1982
. .
Cited – Modern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd v Gilbert Ash (Northern) Ltd HL 1974
The court considered how to construe a clause in a contract which excluded a remedy provided by law. Lord Diplock said: ‘It is, of course, open to parties to a contract . . to exclude by express agreement a remedy for its breach which would . .
Cited – Stag Line v Foscolo, Mango and Company HL 1931
English statutes which give effect to international conventions need to be interpreted with the international origin of the rules well in mind. The Act only applies to contracts of carriage of goods outwards from ports in the United Kingdom, and the . .
Cited – Pearl Carriers Inc v Japan Line Ltd ‘The Chemical Venture’ QBD 1993
. .
Cited – D/S A/S Idaho v Clossus Maritime DA (The Concordia Fjord) QBD 1984
The vessel was chartered for 4 months, with a safe port requirement and a limited area of operation subject to payment of additional insurance premiums. The vessel set off to Beirut, then a safe port. The port lost that designation before the vessel . .
Mentioned – Tyco Fire and Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd v Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Ltd CA 2-Apr-2008
. .
Overruled by Statute – Bureau Wijsmuller NV v Owners of the Tojo Maru (No 2) HL 1971
Salvors were held not to be entitled to limit in respect of the negligent action of their diver since, by definition, neither the diver nor the damaged vessel were on board the salvor’s tug and, further, the diver was not acting in the management of . .
Cited – Aegean Sea Traders Corp v Repsol Petroleo SA (‘The Aegean Sea’) AdCt 1998
The Aegean Sea was lost at sea causing very extensive damage through the escape of its cargo of crude oil. AST asserted as a preliminary issue, that RP had become liable for that damage. RP’s wholly owned subsidiary ROIL was the charterer, argued . .
Cited – CNA CGM S A v Classica Shipping Company Ltd ComC 27-Mar-2003
. .
Cited – CMA CGM Sa v Classica Shipping Co Ltd ‘The CMA Djakarta’ CA 12-Feb-2004
The charterers were held liable to the shippers for the cost of repairing the vessel when containers containing bleach exploded. The charterers had established a compensation limitation fund in France.
Held: The liability of the charterers was . .
Cited – Sir John Jackson Ltd v Owners of Steamship ‘Blanche’ and Others HL 28-Feb-1908
Charterers by demise are ‘owners’ within the meaning of section 3 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, and can, therefore, under that section, claim the benefit of limitation of liability, conferred by sections 503 and 504, in respect of loss or . .
Cited – James Buchanan and Co Ltd v Babco Forwarding and Shipping (UK) Ltd HL 1978
A consignment of whisky was stolen whilst on consignemt from a bonded warehouse under CMR terms for Teheran. In bond, it was worth 7,000 pounds, and on export no excise duty was to be paid. Being stolen in the course of transit, excise duty of . .
Cited – Bradburn v Great Western Rail Co CEC 1874
The plaintiff had received a sum of money from a private insurer to compensate him for lost income as a result of an accident caused by the negligence of the defendant.
Held: He was entitled to full damages as well as the payment from the . .
Cited – Co-Operative Retail Services Limited and others v Taylor Young Partnership and others HL 25-Apr-2002
Whilst a substantial new building was being constructed, it was damaged by fire caused by the negligence of several contractors. The case concerned apportionment of liability.
Held: The appeal failed. The parties could by agreement vary the . .
Cited – The Winkfield 1902
A bailee in possession has a right to recover for loss or damage to his bailor’s goods even though he would have had a good defence to an action by the bailor. . .
Cited – Dunlop v Lambert HL 16-Jun-1839
A cargo of whisky was lost in carriage by sea between Leith and Newcastle. A second shipment was made and the loss was claimed. The House was asked whether ‘in a question between a carrier and the person to whom the carrier is responsible in the . .
Cited – King v Bristow Helicopters Ltd; Morris v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines HL 28-Feb-2002
Psychiatric Injury under Warsaw Convention
The applicants were passengers who claimed damages for psychiatric injury, after accidents in aircraft.
Held: The Convention created strict liability on air carriers, but explicitly restricted damages to be payable for ‘bodily injury’. That . .
Cited – Co-operative Retail Services Ltd v Taylor Young Partnership, Hoare Lea and Partners (a Firm) and Others CA 4-Jul-2000
A building owner entered into a standard form of building contract for the construction of office premises. Under its terms the contractor was required to take out and maintain a policy in the names of the owner, the contractor and specialist . .
Cited – Alfred Mcalpine Construction Limited v Panatown Limited HL 17-Feb-2000
A main contractor who was building not on his own land, would only be free to claim damages from a sub-contractor for defects in the building where the actual owner of the land would not also have had a remedy. Here, the land owner was able to sue . .
Cited – Parry v Cleaver HL 5-Feb-1969
PI Damages not Reduced for Own Pension
The plaintiff policeman was disabled by the negligence of the defendant and received a disablement pension. Part had been contributed by himself and part by his employer.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal succeeded. Damages for personal injury were . .
Cited – Fothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd HL 10-Jul-1980
The plaintiff, on arriving at the airport found that his luggage had been lost. The defendant denied liability saying he had not notified his claim within the requisite period.
Held: Elementary justice requires that the rules by which the . .
Cited – Hopewell Project Management Ltd v Ewbank Preece Ltd 1998
Recorder Jackson QC described as nonsensical if parties who were jointly insured under a contractors’ all risks policy could make claims against one another in respect of damage to the contract works. . .
Cited – Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd and Others; St. Martins Property Corporation Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine HL 8-Dec-1993
A contractor had done defective work in breach of a building contract with the developer but the loss was suffered by a third party who had by then purchased the development. The developer recovered the loss suffered by the purchaser.
Held: . .
Cited – Mark Rowlands v Berni Inns Ltd CA 1985
The plaintiff owned the freehold and had let the basement to the defendant. The plaintiff insured the building. The defendant covenanted to pay to the plaintiff an insurance rent equal to the proportionate cost of insuring the part of the building . .
Cited – Petrofina (UK) Ltd v Magnaload Ltd 1983
A finding of double insurance requires the same insured to be covered in respect of the same property against the same risks.
Lloyd J held that: ‘a head contractor ought to be able to insure the entire contract works in his own name and the . .
Cited – Darlington Borough Council v Wiltshier Northern Ltd CA 28-Jun-1994
The plaintiff council complained of the work done for it by the defendant builder.
Held: Steyn LJ said: ‘in the case of a building contract, the prima facie rule is cost of cure, i.e., the cost of remedying the defect: East Ham Corporation v. . .
Cited – Tate Gallery (Board of Trustees of) v Duffy Construction Ltd and Another TCC 15-Feb-2007
. .
Cited – Liverpool City Council v Irwin HL 31-Mar-1976
The House found it to be an implied term of a tenancy agreement that the lessor was to be responsible for repairing and lighting the common parts of the building of which the premises formed part. In analysing the different types of contract case in . .
Cited – Herrmann and Another v Withers Llp Admn 30-May-2012
. .
Cited – Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd v Korea Line Corporation ComC 14-Jul-2011
(‘The Wren’) Appeal against arbitrator’s award finding repudiatory breach of charterparty. . .
Cited – Koch Marine Inc v D’Amica Societa Di Navigazione ARL (The Elena d’Amico) QBD 1980
The ship owners wrongfully repudiated a charterparty in March 1973, 14 months after its inception. The charterers did not hire a substitute but claimed damages for the loss of profits they would have made between January and April 1974, during which . .
Cited – Zodiac Maritime Agencies Ltd v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd ComC 28-Apr-2010
The Kildare . .
Cited – Hussey v Eels CA 1990
Profits made on development were not deductible
The purchasers of a property for a price of 53,250 pounds had relied on a negligent misrepresentation that the property had not been the subject of subsidence. In fact it had. The cost of the required works was 17,000 pounds, which they could not . .
Cited – Palatine Graphic Arts Co Ltd v Liverpool City Council CA 1985
The defendant local authority agreed to pay for the plaintiff’s premises in Liverpool at the price which would have been payable if the acquisition had been by way of compulsory purchase. The major part of the price constituted compensation for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.582171

G-Star Raw Cv v Rhodi Ltd and Others: ChD 6 Feb 2015

G-Star sought injunctions, orders for delivery up, an inquiry as to damages or an account of profits, and other relief in respect of alleged infringement of the United Kingdom unregistered design rights in the design of a pair of contemporary jean trousers known as the ‘Arc Pant’. The Defendants contended that the rights in question entered the licence of right period under section 237 of the CDPA on 1 January 2014, such that no injunction restraining infringement is now available to G-Star on any view.

Judges:

Richard Spearman QC

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 216 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 237

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property, Limitation

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.542314

Parkinson Engineering Services Plc v Swan and Another: CA 21 Dec 2009

The court considered the scope of the court’s power to permit an amendment as regards parties outside a limitation period. The amendment in this instance was to substitute one claimant in place of another, namely the liquidator of a company instead of the company itself.
Held: The court said of the new rule that: ‘The text is not quite the same as that of the section, but the rule must be construed as being no wider than is permitted by the section. The effect, on the facts of this case, is that paragraph (3)(b) has to be satisfied, it being shown ‘that the claim cannot properly be carried on by or against the original party’ without the substitution.’

Judges:

Sedley LJ, Lloyd LJ, Sullivan LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1366, [2010] PNLR 17, [2010] BPIR 437, [2010] Bus LR 857

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedures Rules 19.5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Goldfarb (Liquidator of Eurocruit Europe Ltd) v Poppleton ChD 21-Jun-2007
The court was asked whether proceedings under section 212 brought by the liquidator against a former director of the company were barred by limitation, having been brought just within 6 years after the resolution for creditors’ voluntary . .

Cited by:

Cited – Irwin and Another v Lynch and Another CA 6-Oct-2010
The court considered an appeal against an order allowing an amendment outside the limitation period which would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Limitation

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.392512

Ramdass v Bahaw-Nanan: PC 14 Dec 2009

(Trinidad and Tobago)The appellant claimed to have taken possession of land adverse to its paper owner, the respondent. The respondent said that the occupation had been by virtue of a tenancy which she had terminated.

Judges:

Lord Rodger, Lord Walker, Lord Collins, Lord Kerr, Sir Christopher Rose

Citations:

[2009] UKPC 51

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Smith v Poulter 1947
The court has a duty to see whether a tenant is entitled to statutory protection, even if the point is not pleaded or raised by the tenant. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Land, Limitation

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.384073

Doyle v PRA Group (UK) Ltd: CA 23 Jan 2019

Whether the cause of action for the outstanding sums accrued when D first defaulted in his payments or only when D failed to comply with the default notice stipulated by CCA s.87(1) and required by clause 8f of the Agreement. D appealed from a finding against him.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘The effect of the introductory wording of clause 8f of the Agreement (‘Subject to us sending you any notice required or taking any steps required by law’) and, more particularly, CCA s.87(1) is that, absent service and expiry of a default notice compliant with CCA ss.87 and 88, there would have been both a complete defence to a claim for all outstanding sums under the Agreement and an unanswerable right to strike out the claim.’ Whether a delay which had become abusive could be used under s140A and 140B to set aside the consequences of s87 was not before the court.

Judges:

Sir Terence Etherton Mr, Lord Justice Flaux
And
Lord Justice Peter Jackson

Citations:

[2019] ECC 13, [2019] EWCA Civ 12, [2019] 1 WLR 3783, [2019] WLR(D) 236

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Consumer Credit Act 1974 87(1), Limitation Act 1980 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Read v Brown CA 1-Dec-1888
Lord Esher defined the phrase ’cause of action’ to mean ‘Every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court.’ . .
Cited – Coburn v Colledge CA 5-Apr-1897
A solicitor commenced an action on June 12th, 1896 for his fees for work which had been completed on May 30th 1889.
Held: A period of limitation runs from the date on which the ingredients of the cause of action are complete. The statute of . .
Cited – Central Electricity Generating Board v Halifax Corporation HL 1963
Under the 1947 Act, the assets of electricity undertakings were transferred to to electricity boards. Property held by local authorities as authorised undertakers should, on vesting day, vest in the relevant board. A question arose as to whether . .
Cited – Swansea City Council v Glass CA 1992
The defendant had failed himself to repair his property, and the Local Authority carried out the work itself under the 1957 Act. It sought to recover the associated costs from the defendant, but he said that their claim was time barred, being more . .
Cited – Sevcon Ltd v Lucas CAV Ltd HL 1986
A claim was brought for the infringement of a patent. It was brought after the specification had been published, but before the patent had been sealed.
Held: Time might run from a date before the plaintiff was entitled to sue. The cause of . .
Cited – Harrison v Link Financial Ltd Merc 28-Feb-2011
. .
Cited – Grace and Another v Black Horse Ltd CA 30-Oct-2014
The appellant had entered into a Consumer Credit Agreement with the respondent, but the form signed by him was not the same as that signed by the bank, and it was unenforceable. He fell into arrears. . .
Cited – McGuffick v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc ComC 6-Oct-2009
Requirements for Enforcing Consumer Loan Agreement
The claimant challenged the validity of a loan agreement with his bank as a regulated consumer credit agreement. After default, the lender failed to satisfy a request for a copy of the agreement under section 77. The bank said that though it could . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Consumer, Banking

Updated: 09 August 2022; Ref: scu.632652

Sevcon Ltd v Lucas CAV Ltd: HL 1986

A claim was brought for the infringement of a patent. It was brought after the specification had been published, but before the patent had been sealed.
Held: Time might run from a date before the plaintiff was entitled to sue. The cause of action for infringement accrued at the date of the infringement even if that was before the date of sealing but the claim could not be enforced until the procedural requirement of sealing was met.
Lord McKay of Clashfern said: ‘If he were to institute proceedings for infringement before the patent for the invention was sealed, the procedural requirements of the proviso would not be satisfied but a statement of claim could not be struck out as disclosing no cause of action although it might be liable to be struck out as an abuse of the process of the court.’

Judges:

Lord McKay of Clashfern

Citations:

[1986] 1 WLR 462

Statutes:

Patents Act 1949 13(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Green and others v Gaul and Another; In re Loftus deceased ChD 18-Mar-2005
The claimants began an action in January 2003 to seek to set aside the appointment of an administrator from December 1991, and to have set aside transfers of property made within the estate.
Held: The limitation period against a personal . .
Cited – Legal Services Commission v Rasool CA 5-Mar-2008
The defendant had in 1993 obtained legal aid. Work was done but the certificate was then revoked. The Commission sought repayment of the sums paid on account to his solicitors. He replied that the claim was out of time. The Commission argued that . .
Cited – Swansea City Council v Glass CA 1992
The defendant had failed himself to repair his property, and the Local Authority carried out the work itself under the 1957 Act. It sought to recover the associated costs from the defendant, but he said that their claim was time barred, being more . .
Cited – FMX Food Merchants Import Export Co Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 29-Jan-2020
This appeal concerns the meaning and effect of the phrase ‘Customs Debt’ in article 221(4) of the former Customs Code of the EU, contained in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92. Customs duties may be due under ‘post-clearance demands’ and the Court . .
Cited – Doyle v PRA Group (UK) Ltd CA 23-Jan-2019
Whether the cause of action for the outstanding sums accrued when Mr Doyle first defaulted in his payments or only when Mr Doyle failed to comply with the default notice stipulated by CCA s.87(1) and required by clause 8f of the Agreement. Mr Doyle . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Limitation

Updated: 08 August 2022; Ref: scu.223965

Swansea City Council v Glass: CA 1992

The defendant had failed himself to repair his property, and the Local Authority carried out the work itself under the 1957 Act. It sought to recover the associated costs from the defendant, but he said that their claim was time barred, being more than six years after the work had been concluded. The authority argued that it was not more than six years from when it had served the notices demanding payment.
Held: The notices were not the cause of action, but only a condition precedent to bringing an action. Accordingly time ran from the conclusion of the works, and the claim was out of time.
Taylor LJ said: ‘Section 10(4) provides expressly that where the local authority opts to take summary proceedings to recover their expenses, the limitation period runs from the date of service of the demand or, if there is an appeal, the date when the demand becomes operative. Again, by implication, since no such provision is applied to proceedings in the High Court or County Court, time in those proceedings does not run from the date when the demand is served or becomes operative. It will run from the accrual of the cause of action which, ex hypothesi, is a different time.
The rationale of the distinction between summary and other proceedings probably lies in the respective limitation periods. In summary proceedings the period is six months. If time were to run from the accrual of the cause of action, i.e. when the expenses were incurred, summary proceedings might often be statute-barred before they could be brought, especially where there was an appeal against the demand. In other proceedings, however, the limitation period of six years gives, or should give, the local authority ample time to sue even after an appeal against their demand. In my judgment, the expression, special to section 10(4), that time runs from service of the demand or when it becomes operative, is intended to distinguish summary proceedings from other proceedings. Inclusio unius, exclusio alterius. In other proceedings, time runs from the accrual of the cause of action, i.e. when the four elements identified above are complete. Thus, I conclude that the requirement to serve a demand is a procedural condition precedent to bringing proceedings. It is not part of the cause of action.
I am fortified in this view by consideration of what could result if the local authority were right. Upon their argument, the local authority could delay service of a demand indefinitely. Then, having served their demand long after the works were complete, they would have a further six years in which to take proceedings in the High Court or the county court.’
Taylor LJ also noted that: ”Although not on all fours with the present case, these decisions show that a cause of action may well accrue before, for procedural reasons, the plaintiff can bring proceedings. Where the cause of action arises from statute, the question as to what is merely procedural and what is an ‘inherent element’ in the cause of action is one of construction.’ It is a question of construction of the relevant instrument, whether statute, regulations, rules or contract, in each case as to whether there is such a difference.

Judges:

Taylor LJ

Citations:

[1992] 1 QB 844, [1992] CLY 2828, [1992] 2 All ER 680, [1992] 3 WLR 123

Statutes:

Housing Act 1957 10(4), Limitation Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Coburn v Colledge CA 5-Apr-1897
A solicitor commenced an action on June 12th, 1896 for his fees for work which had been completed on May 30th 1889.
Held: A period of limitation runs from the date on which the ingredients of the cause of action are complete. The statute of . .
Cited – Central Electricity Generating Board v Halifax Corporation HL 1963
Under the 1947 Act, the assets of electricity undertakings were transferred to to electricity boards. Property held by local authorities as authorised undertakers should, on vesting day, vest in the relevant board. A question arose as to whether . .
Cited – Sevcon Ltd v Lucas CAV Ltd HL 1986
A claim was brought for the infringement of a patent. It was brought after the specification had been published, but before the patent had been sealed.
Held: Time might run from a date before the plaintiff was entitled to sue. The cause of . .

Cited by:

Cited – The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Amanullah Khan and The Wellcome Trust ChD 13-Jun-2001
The authority had served notices on the second defendant, requiring him to execute works to bring a property up to a habitable condition. Eventually the authority executed the works themselves, and sought repayment from him of the costs. He resisted . .
Cited – Legal Services Commission v Henthorn CA 30-Nov-2011
The Commission sought to recover what it said were payments made on account to the respondent barrister, but only after many years had passed. The Commission argued that time only began to run once it requested repayment.
Held: The appeal . .
Cited – Hillingdon London Borough Council v ARC Ltd ChD 12-Jun-1997
The Council had taken possession of the company’s land under compulsory purchase powers, but the company delayed its claim for compensation, and the Council now said that the claim was time barred.
Held: The claim was indeed time barred. The . .
Cited – Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Khan and Wellcome Trust ChD 8-Jun-2001
. .
Cited – Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Khan and Another CA 16-Jan-2002
. .
Cited – Howe v Motor Insurers’ Bureau QBD 22-Mar-2016
The claimant sought damages after a road traffic accident in France caused by a wheel spinning from a still unidentified lorry.
Held: Rejected . .
Cited – FMX Food Merchants Import Export Co Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 29-Jan-2020
This appeal concerns the meaning and effect of the phrase ‘Customs Debt’ in article 221(4) of the former Customs Code of the EU, contained in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92. Customs duties may be due under ‘post-clearance demands’ and the Court . .
Cited – Doyle v PRA Group (UK) Ltd CA 23-Jan-2019
Whether the cause of action for the outstanding sums accrued when Mr Doyle first defaulted in his payments or only when Mr Doyle failed to comply with the default notice stipulated by CCA s.87(1) and required by clause 8f of the Agreement. Mr Doyle . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Housing, Local Government

Updated: 08 August 2022; Ref: scu.180520

Central Electricity Generating Board v Halifax Corporation: HL 1963

Under the 1947 Act, the assets of electricity undertakings were transferred to to electricity boards. Property held by local authorities as authorised undertakers should, on vesting day, vest in the relevant board. A question arose as to whether certain monies had been held by the local authority and the question was referred to the minister, who decided that they had and so the appellant sought to recover the money.
Held: The cause of action accrued at the vesting date, more than six years before the action commenced, even though the appellants could not have proved the monies were held by the respondents as authorised undertakers until the minister had so decided. The minister’s decision and vesting notice did not create a new right of property or chose in action, but merely enabled a pre-existing right of action to be enforced. Albeit that the minister had to decide any dispute of fact relevant to the claim, the plaintiff could have issued proceedings for the recovery of the money at any time after 1 April 1948.
Lord Reid said: ‘No new right or liability came into existence at [the date of the minister’s decision]. It is quite clear, and it is now admitted by the appellants, that the effect of the minister’s decision was merely to prove that this sum had belonged to the appellants ever since the vesting date. It created no new right of property or chose in action: it merely enabled a pre-existing right to be enforced.
A number of cases were cited in argument. None was directly in point and I have found nothing in any of these cases which conflicts with the view that a cause of action can exist although one of the facts essential to the cause of action can only be proved otherwise than by evidence led in court and has not yet been proved when action is brought. If the appellants had begun an action within six years of the vesting date, and had applied to the minister for his decision when the respondents traversed their allegation that the sum sued for had been held or used by the respondents in their capacity of electricity undertakers, proceedings in the action could, if necessary, have been stayed to await the minister’s decision. But they did not do that and, in my judgment, this action is barred by section 2(1)(d) of the Limitation Act.’

Judges:

Lord Reid

Citations:

[1963] AC 785

Statutes:

Electricity Act 1947, Limitation Act 1939 2(1)(d)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Dissenting dicta approved – Leivers v Barber Walker and Co Ltd CA 1943
Goddard LJ (dissenting) said that section 2(1)(d) of the 1939 Act changed the former position altogether, leaving the provision for limitation as regards specialties to apply only to deeds and other documents under seal (or to claims other than for . .

Cited by:

Cited – Legal Services Commission v Rasool CA 5-Mar-2008
The defendant had in 1993 obtained legal aid. Work was done but the certificate was then revoked. The Commission sought repayment of the sums paid on account to his solicitors. He replied that the claim was out of time. The Commission argued that . .
Cited – Legal Services Commission v Henthorn QBD 4-Feb-2011
The claimant sought to recover overpayments said to have been made to the defendant barrister in the early 1990s. Interim payments on account had been made, but these were not followed by final accounts. The defendant, now retired, said that the . .
Cited – Legal Services Commission v Henthorn CA 30-Nov-2011
The Commission sought to recover what it said were payments made on account to the respondent barrister, but only after many years had passed. The Commission argued that time only began to run once it requested repayment.
Held: The appeal . .
Cited – Swansea City Council v Glass CA 1992
The defendant had failed himself to repair his property, and the Local Authority carried out the work itself under the 1957 Act. It sought to recover the associated costs from the defendant, but he said that their claim was time barred, being more . .
Cited – Doyle v PRA Group (UK) Ltd CA 23-Jan-2019
Whether the cause of action for the outstanding sums accrued when Mr Doyle first defaulted in his payments or only when Mr Doyle failed to comply with the default notice stipulated by CCA s.87(1) and required by clause 8f of the Agreement. Mr Doyle . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Utilities

Updated: 08 August 2022; Ref: scu.268785

CNA CGM S A v Classica Shipping Company Ltd: ComC 27 Mar 2003

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 641 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Merchant Shipping Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – CMA CGM Sa v Classica Shipping Co Ltd ‘The CMA Djakarta’ CA 12-Feb-2004
The charterers were held liable to the shippers for the cost of repairing the vessel when containers containing bleach exploded. The charterers had established a compensation limitation fund in France.
Held: The liability of the charterers was . .
Cited – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Transport, Limitation

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.181954

Ezekiel v Lehrer: ChD 21 Mar 2001

The claimant had given instructions to the defendant with regard to a charge. The defendant came to know that he had made an error, and when asked by the claimant, declined to answer, and referred the claimant to independent advice. The claimant now said that this amounted to a concealment of the truth such as to delay the onset of the limitation period.
Held: The circumstances could have been discovered by the claimant from correspondence sent to him by the defendant. The deemed misleading by the defendant did not therefore operate to suspend the running of the limitation period, and the claim was out of time.

Judges:

Evans-Lombe J

Citations:

Times 04-Apr-2001, Gazette 17-May-2001

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 32(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Markes v Coodes 1997
. .
Cited – James Brocklesby v Armitage and Guest (a Firm) CA 9-Jul-1999
A failure by an adviser to make his position clear when he thought he had been negligent, could constitute a ‘deliberate’ act within section 32 even if the defendant’s actions were not motivated by any intention to deceive the claimant: ‘it is not . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Ezekiel v Lehrer CA 30-Jan-2002
The applicant claimed that his solicitor had been negligent with regard to the execution of a mortgage. The solicitor said his claim was time barred. The claimant said the solicitor had hidden the true situation from him, and the solicitor replied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.80430

Re a Debtor: ChD 1997

The creditor appealed the decision to set aside a statutory demand as statute barred.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Bankruptcy proceedings based on a statutory demand for moneys due under a previous default judgment constituted ‘an action upon a judgment’ within s24(1). Insolvency proceedings constituted a fresh action or proceeding newly brought, of the kind described in Lamb, rather than a proceeding under the judgment previously obtained. Bankruptcy proceedings were not, the judge held, a method of, nor were they akin to, enforcing or executing a judgment outside s24(1). As more than 6 years had elapsed since the default judgment became enforceable, bankruptcy proceedings based on it in the statutory demand would be statute barred by s24(1). It was held that the statutory demand had been rightly set aside by the district judge.

Judges:

Baker J

Citations:

[1997] Ch 310

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 24(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Ridgeway 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: . .
Disapproved – Ridgeway Motors (Isleworth) Ltd v Altis ChD 21-May-2004
The company sought to strike out a winding up petition presented by the respondents, saying a winding up petition was by way of an action, and was barred by statute after six years.
Held: A winding up petition was not an action within the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Limitation

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.223039

Johnston v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police: QBD 20 Nov 2009

The proposed claimant sought leave under the 1983 Act to bring an action for assault and false imprisonment, and further a disapplication of the limitation period to allow a claim out of time. The defendant said that the proposed claimant had been found in a public place and had been to appear to be suffering a mental disorder.

Judges:

Coulson J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2969 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Mental Health Act 1983 136 139

Citing:

Cited – Winch v Jones CA 1986
The court asked as to the criteria which should be applied when considering an application by a mental patient for leave to bring proceedings under section 139: ‘section 139 protects the defendant unless and until the applicant obtains leave. This . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health, Police, Limitation

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.380361

Uniplex (UK) Limited v Uniplex (Law Relating To Undertakings): ECJ 29 Oct 2009

ECJ Public procurement Directive 89/665/EEC – Review procedure under national law – Effective legal protection -Limitation periods – Point at which time starts running – Whether the applicant knew or ‘ought to have’ known of the breach of procurement law Requirement that proceedings be brought ‘promptly’.

Citations:

C-406/08, [2009] EUECJ C-406/08 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

See Also – Uniplex (UK) Limited v Uniplex ECJ 28-Jan-2010
ECJ Directive 89/665/EEC – Procedures for review of the award of public contracts – Period within which proceedings must be brought – Date from which the period for bringing proceedings starts to run. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Limitation, Judicial Review

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.380310

Hampton v Minns: ChD 17 May 2001

The parties were each sureties for a debt to their bank from their company. The bank recovered the company’s debt from one surety, who in turn sought a contribution of half from the other. The respondent asserted that the claim was statute barred, because in this case it was a claim under a guarantee for which the limitation period was two years. The claimant succeeded, on the basis that the claim was in debt, because of the particular agreement. On its true construction the agreement between the parties created a debt, and the right to a contribution did not arise under the 1978 Act.

Citations:

Gazette 17-May-2001

Statutes:

Civil Liability (Contributions) Act 1978 1, Limitation Act 1980 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Limitation, Banking

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.81213

Nolan v Wright: CA 15 Oct 2009

Action for the recovery of a very large sum of money from the defendant borrower pursuant to an unregulated credit agreement and a legal charge. The defendant seeks to set aside the loan documentation as a sham or procured by undue influence or misrepresentation.

Judges:

Lloyd LJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1131

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Costs, Limitation

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.377533

Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd v Larnell (Insurances) Ltd: CA 29 Nov 2005

The claimant investors said that their financial adviser, the defendant insolvent company, had given them negligent advice. The action was brought as a preliminary to claiming against the defendant’s insurers under the 1930 Act, in the way made necessary by the Post Office and Bradley cases. Limitation defences were deployed to strike the action out. The claimant had put in a proof of debt in the liquidation, but the liquidator had neither admitted nor rejected it.
Held: Establishment of liability by action, by arbitration or agreement between the insured and the third party, was a prerequisite to a claim, even though agreement will not always be possible, for example where the policy prohibits it.
Lloyd LJ said: ‘If proceedings are necessary, they may take one of a number of forms. The obvious instance is a claim such as the present. Because the company is in voluntary winding-up it is unnecessary to obtain consent before starting such a claim. If the winding-up were compulsory the court’s permission would be needed, and the court might regard it as more appropriate for the third party to prove for its debt. If the liquidator were to reject that proof, the third party could appeal against that rejection under rule 4.83 of the Insolvency Rules 1986. That would lead to a judicial determination which would also be sufficient establishment of the liability of the insured. Nothing turns on the particular procedure adopted. It makes no difference whether the proceedings themselves are brought within the bankruptcy or winding-up { proceedings or outside them, as is the present claim.’

Judges:

Lloyd LJ, Moore-Bick LJ

Citations:

[2004] Ch 317, [2005] EWCA Civ 1408, [2006] 1 QB 808

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Law Society of England and Wales and others v Shah and others ChD 30-Nov-2007
Solicitor firms had been made bankrupt leaving a shortfall after thefts from client accounts of over 12 million pounds. The thief had diappeared, and the other partners were now discharged form bankruptcy. The Law Society accepted that it could not . .
Cited – Laroche v Spirit of Adventure (UK) Ltd CA 21-Jan-2009
Hot Air balloon was an aircraft: damages limited
The claimant was injured flying in the defendant’s hot air balloon. The defendant said that the journey was covered by the 1967 Regulations and the damages limited accordingly. The claimant appealed against a decision that the balloon was an . .
Cited – LB Holdings Intermediate 2 Ltd, The Joint Administrators of v Lehman Brothers International (Europe), The Joint Administrators of and Others SC 17-May-2017
In the course of the insolvent administration of the bank, substantial additional sums were received. Parties appealed against some orders made on the application to court for directions as to what was to be done with the surplus.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Insurance, Insolvency

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.235436

CMA CGM Sa v Classica Shipping Co Ltd ‘The CMA Djakarta’: CA 12 Feb 2004

The charterers were held liable to the shippers for the cost of repairing the vessel when containers containing bleach exploded. The charterers had established a compensation limitation fund in France.
Held: The liability of the charterers was defined by the type of claim brought, not by the capacity in which he acted. The charterers appeal failed save that they could limit their liability to claims from the shipowners for damage to their own cargoes.

Judges:

Waller, Longmore, Neuberger LJJ

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 114, Times 27-Feb-2004, Gazette 18-Mar-2004, [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 460, [2004] 1 All ER (Comm) 865

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Merchant Shipping Act 1995 185, Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims of 1976

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – CNA CGM S A v Classica Shipping Company Ltd ComC 27-Mar-2003
. .

Cited by:

Binding – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd and Others ComC 30-Jul-2013
The vessel ‘Ocean Victory’ grounded in 2006 entering a port in a storm.
Held: In the first action, that the intermediate charterers were liable to the demise charterers for breach of the safe port warranty in the time charter, and likewise, in . .
Binding – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd CA 22-Jan-2015
The Ocean Victory went aground in a storm in Kashima port. The court was now asked (i) what, as a matter of law, was the correct test for an abnormal occurrence; (ii) in particular, was the judge correct to hold that the combination of two weather . .
Cited – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Transport, Limitation

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.193492

Mahomed v Bank of Baroda: CA 10 Dec 1998

A claim against a bank for repayment of a deposit does not of itself restart the limitation period on a claim, but where a customer revoked a demand, asking for payment at next maturity, the contract continued and the limitation period started afresh.

Citations:

Times 10-Dec-1998, Gazette 10-Dec-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 1776

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Limitation, Banking

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.83318

Ronex 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 earliest when the claimant tortfeasor has been held liable, or has admitted liability to the plaintiff, and the amount of that liability has been ascertained by judgment or admission. This proposition is supported by dicta in George Wimpey and Co. Ltd. v. British Overseas Airways Corporation [1955] A.C. 169, per Viscount Simonds at p. 177, Lord Porter at p. 182 and Lord Keith at p. 193. It is also in accordance with the dictum of McNair J. in Harvey v. R.G.O’Dell Ltd. [1958] 2 Q.B. 78, 108, and it is consistent with the approach of Parliament in section 4 of the Limitation Act 1963. For my part I am content to assume that it is right.’
Stephenson LJ said: ‘There are many cases in which the expiry of the limitation period makes it a waste of time and money to let a plaintiff go on with his action. But in those cases it may be impossible to say that he has no reasonable cause of action. The right course is therefore for a defendant to apply to strike out the plaintiffs’ claim as frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court, on the ground that it is statute-barred. Then the plaintiff and the court know that the Statute of Limitations will be pleaded; the defendant can, if necessary, file evidence to that effect; the plaintiff can file evidence of an acknowledgment or concealed fraud or any matter which may show the court that his claim is not vexatious or an abuse of process.’

Judges:

Donaldson LJ, Stephenson LJ

Citations:

[1983] 1 QB 398

Statutes:

Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act 1935

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Wimpey (George) Co Ltd v British Overseas Airways Corporation HL 1954
A joint tortfeasor could escape liability in contribution proceedings if it had been unsuccessfully sued by the injured person in an action brought outside the relevant limitation period. Where a court has to decide between two competing cases, if . .
Cited – Harvey v R G O’Dell Ltd 1958
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Aer 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.238754

Wilkinson v Ancliff (BLT) Ltd: CA 1986

In order to be fixed with sufficient knowledge to start the limitation period running, it was not necessary for the plaintiff to have knowledge sufficient to enable his legal advisers to draft a fully and comprehensively particularised statement of claim.

Judges:

Slade LJ

Citations:

[1986] 1 WLR 1352

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Limitation

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.238774

Simpson v Norwest Holst Southern Ltd: CA 1980

The court considered the effect on limitation of a person taking steps to disguise the identity of a potential defendant.
Held: Where the employer’s identity had been ‘hidden’ under mere reference to a corporate group, the date of knowledge only came when the employee learned his employer’s actual name.

Citations:

[1980] 1 WLR 968

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Farraj and Another v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust and Another QBD 26-May-2006
The claimants sought damages after the birth of their child with a severe hereditary disease which they said the defendant hospital had failed to diagnose after testing for that disease. The hospital sought a contribution from the company CSL who . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.242345

Barton v Wright Hassall Llp: SC 21 Feb 2018

The claimant, a litigant in person, purported to serve his statement of claim by email, but had not first sought the defendant’s agreement as required. The solicitors allowed the limitation period to expire without acknowledging service. The claimant now appealed against his claim being struck out for limitation.
Held: The appeal failed. The decision was one made in the discretion of the court. What constitutes ‘good reason’ for validating the non-compliant service of a claim form is essentially a matter of factual evaluation. The main factors, the weight of which will vary with the circumstances, are likely to be: (i) whether the claimant took reasonable steps to serve in accordance with the rules; (ii) whether the defendant or his solicitor knew of the contents of the claim form when it expired; (iii) what, if any, prejudice the defendant would suffer from validation of the non-compliant service.
‘there is a disciplinary factor in the decision whether to impose or relieve from sanctions for non-compliance with rules or orders of the court, which has become increasingly significant in recent years with the growing pressure of business in the courts. CPR rule 6.15 is rather different. It is directed specifically to the rules governing service of a claim form. They give rise to special considerations which do not necessarily apply to other formal documents or to other rules or orders of the court. The main difference is that the disciplinary factor is less important. The rules governing service of a claim form do not impose duties, in the sense in which, say, the rules governing the time for the service of evidence, impose a duty. They are simply conditions on which the court will take cognisance of the matter at all. Although the court may dispense with service altogether or make interlocutory orders before it has happened if necessary, as a general rule service of originating process is the act by which the defendant is subjected to the court’s jurisdiction.’

Judges:

Baroness Hale of Richmond, PSC Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Briggs JJSC

Citations:

[2018] UKSC 12, [2018] 1 WLR 1119, [2018] WLR(D) 116, [2018] 3 All ER 487, UKSC 2016/0136

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, Video 22 Nov 2017 am, Video 22 Nov 2017 pm, WLRD

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Application for Leave – Barton v Wright Hassall Solicitors Llp CA 16-Jun-2015
Application for leave to appeal . .
At CA – Barton v Wright Hassall Llp CA 23-Mar-2016
Application under CPR 6.15(2) for an order that steps already taken to bring a claim form to the attention of the defendant, but falling short of good service under the CPR, shall count as good service. . .
Cited – Prince Abdulaziz v Apex Global Management Ltd and Another SC 26-Nov-2014
The appellant was involved in very substantial litigation with the respondents. As a member of the Saudi Royal family he said that by convention he was not allowed to sign a witness statement, and appealed inter alia against orders requiring him to . .
Cited – Denton and Others v TH White Ltd and Others CA 4-Jul-2014
(De Laval Ltd, Part 20 defendant) (Practice Note) Several parties applied for relief from sanctions, having been refused at first instance:
Held: The court identified a three stage process. It should first calculate the seriousness and or . .
Cited – Elmes v Hygrade Food Products Plc CA 24-Jan-2001
Where a claim form is served in time but is incorrectly served (in this case on the defendants’ insurers instead of on the defendants themselves), there is no power in the court under CPR 3.10(b) (remedy of errors of procedure) or CPR 6.8 (service . .
Cited – Abela and Others v Baadarani SC 26-Jun-2013
The claimants sought damages alleging fraud in a company share purchase. They said that their lawyer had secretly been working for the sellers. The claim form had been issued, but the claimant had delayed in requesting permission for its service . .
Cited – Power v Meloy Whittle Robinson Solicitors CA 2-Jul-2014
The court itself had failed to effect proper service because of an administrative error.
Held: The Court rejected the submission that the claimant need not necessarily demonstrate that there was no way in which he could have effected service . .
Cited – Nata Lee Ltd v Abid and Another CA 18-Dec-2014
The Court pointed to the need to treat litigants in person in the same was as others: ‘ the fact that a party (whether an individual or a corporate body) is not professionally represented is not of itself a reason for the disapplication of rules, . .
Cited – Hysaj v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 16-Dec-2014
Applications for extensions of time to file an appeal should be taken the same as for applications for relief from sanctions, and should attract the same rigorous approach. There is no good reason to have a different approach for public law cases. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd SC 20-Feb-2019
The Court was asked in what circumstances is it permissible to sue an unnamed defendant? The respondent was injured when her car collided with another. The care was insured but by a driver giving a false name. The car owner refused to identify him. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Human Rights, Limitation

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.605315

Westminster City Council v Clifford Culpin and partners: CA 18 Jun 1987

It was questionable whether plaintiffs should be allowed the benefit of the full limitation period with virtual impunity where the facts are known and there is no obstacle to the speedy institution and prosecution of claims.

Judges:

Kerr LJ

Citations:

Unreported, 18 June 1987, Transcript No 592 of 1987

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Doubted – Department of Transport v Chris Smaller (Transport) Ltd HL 1989
An application had been made to strike out a claim for want of prosecution. The writ was not issued until the end of the relevant six year limitation period and then not served for a further nine months. The period of inexcusable delay after action . .
Cited – Grovit and others v Doctor and others HL 24-Apr-1997
The plaintiff began a defamation action against seven defendants. Each had admitted publication but pleaded justification. The claims against the fourth to seventh defendants were dismissed by consent, and the third had gone into liquidation. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.214298

Jim Ennis Construction Ltd v Premier Asphalt Ltd: TCC 24 Jul 2009

The court was asked as to the date of accrual of the cause of action where a losing party to an adjudication brought under Part II of the 1996 Act later begins proceedings to seek a final determination of the matters decided by the adjudicator with a view to recovering monies paid to the winning party in compliance with the adjudicator’s decision. ‘The Claimant contends that the cause of action is separate and distinct from the cause of action in respect of the dispute referred to adjudication, and does not arise until the date of payment in compliance with the decision, whereas the Defendant contends that the cause of action is no different from the dispute referred to adjudication and thus arises at the same time as that underlying cause of action.’
Held: There was an implied term of the construction contract that an unsuccessful party to an adjudication was entitled to be repaid all sums paid by it in compliance with an adjudication if they were subsequently decided or agreed not to be due and that the cause of action for such sums accrued at the date of the original payment.

Judges:

HHJ Stephen Davies

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1906 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, Limitation Act 1980

Cited by:

Cited – Aspect Contracts (Asbetos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc SC 17-Jun-2015
Aspect had claimed the return of funds paid by it to the appellant Higgins under an adjudication award in a construction contract disute. The claimant had been asked to prpare asbestos surveys and reports on maisonettes which Higgins was to acquire . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Limitation

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.361479