The claimant as PR of her husband’s estate sought damages for misrepresentation and, against his former solicitiors for negligence in regards to the boundaries of a property he had bought from the first defendants using the second defendants as his solicitors. The first defendant said the claim was time barred. The six year period had elapsed from the date of exchange, but not from the date of completion.
Held: The claim failed. By virtue of section 8(2) of the 1980 Act, the case did not fall within section 8(1). The limitation period was 6 years. The cause of action arose when the deceased entered into the transaction.
The claim was in tort, a civil wrong, and in the 1967 Act Parliament had intended that those inducing others to enter into contracts using representations later shown false should be liable to make compensation if they could not show reasonable grounds for belief in what they had said. Such a claim was properly described as the remedying of a civil wrong and as a statutory tort.
The continued failure by the solicitors to remedy the situation could not restart the clock.
Mark Cawson QC J
 EWHC B24 (Ch),  Ch 363,  2 WLR 510,  PNLR 9,  WLR(D) 335
Misrepresentation Act 1967 2(1), Limitation Act 1980 2 8(1) 8(2) 9(1)
England and Wales
Cited – Laws and others v The Society of Lloyd’s CA 19-Dec-2003
The applicants sought to amend earlier pleadings to add a claim that their human rights had been infringed by the 1982 Act, which gave the respondents certain immunities.
Held: The Human Rights Act 1998 was not retrospective. At the time when . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other, Professional Negligence
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.450237