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.


Evans-Lombe J


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


Limitation Act 1980 32(1)(b)


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

Cited by:

Appeal fromEzekiel 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.


Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80430