In an allegation of professional negligence which had lead to a transfer of funds, time ran for limitation purposes from the time of the transfer, and not from the point later when it became apparent that the legal advice may have been negligent. A solicitor had advised that a transfer of pension funds was lawful, but a later decision of the courts clarified that this was wrong. The limitation period was not extended because the unlawfulness was a matter of law and all the facts had been known: ‘What the plaintiff’s argument boils down to is that although it knew all the material facts it did not know until later that those facts gave rise to a claim in negligence. In my judgment, however, in cases under section 14A as in personal injury cases, their ignorance that the known facts may give rise to a claim in law cannot postpone the running of time under the 1980 Act. As I read the sections and the authorities, both section 14 and section 14A are concerned exclusively with matters of fact provable by evidence, as opposed to matters of English law, in respect of which evidence is inadmissible.’
Judges:
Jonathan Parker J
Citations:
Times 05-Mar-1999, Gazette 24-Feb-1999, [1999] Lloyds LR (PN) 489
Statutes:
Latent Damage Act 1986, Limitation Act 1980 14A
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Denekamp v Denekamp CA 8-Dec-2005
Appeal against striking out of claim and civil restraint order. . .
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, Professional Negligence
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.81357