Although a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, as a claim in equity, was not subject to the same limitation periods imposed by the Act as claims in tort or contract, a court exercising an equitable jurisdiction should apply similar periods under the equitable principle of acquiescence. A six year limitation period should be applied by analogy to a claim for equitable compensation for dishonest breach of fiduciary duty by an underwriter. Claims against the underwriter in contract and tort based on the same facts were statute barred under sections 2 and 5 of the 1980 Act. More than six years had expired since the accrual of the cause of action. The analogy of the six year time limit for claims in contract and tort would have been applied by a court of equity before 1 July 1940 to the claim for breach of fiduciary duty.
Judges:
Waller LJ
Citations:
Times 26-Sep-2000, [2001] 1 WLR 112, [2000] EWCA Civ 219
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Companhia De Seguros Imperio v Heath (Rebx) Ltd and others ComC 30-Mar-1999
ComC Insurer/reinsurer claimed damages from brokers for breach of written binding authority agreements made in 1970s – claim in tort for breaches of fiduciary duties and of duties coextensive to those under the . .
Cited by:
Cited – DEG-Deutsche Investitions und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH v Koshy and Other (No 3); Gwembe Valley Development Co Ltd (in receivership) v Same (No 3) CA 28-Jul-2003
The company sought to recover damages from a director who had acted dishonestly, by concealing a financial interest in a different company which had made loans to the claimant company. He replied that the claim was out of time. At first instance the . .
Appealed to – Companhia De Seguros Imperio v Heath (Rebx) Ltd and others ComC 30-Mar-1999
ComC Insurer/reinsurer claimed damages from brokers for breach of written binding authority agreements made in 1970s – claim in tort for breaches of fiduciary duties and of duties coextensive to those under the . .
Cited – P and O Nedlloyd Bv v Arab Metals Co and others CA 13-Dec-2006
An order for specific performance had been refused in a disputed contract for carriage. The claimant argued that normal limitation periods should not be applied by analogy.
Held: Because there was no corresponding legal remedy the remedy in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Equity, Limitation
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147252