Iron Trade Mutual Insurance Co Ltd v J K Buckenham Ltd: 1990

The negligence of the plaintiffs’ insurance brokers led to the insurance policies being voidable for non-disclosure.
Held: The plaintiffs suffered immediate damage on entering into the policies because they did not get the protection they should have had, even though the eventual uninsured losses and the avoidance of the policies were wholly contingent at the time the insurance agreements were made and might never have eventuated.
‘But counsel for the plaintiffs emphasises that this is an application to strike out the plaintiffs’ cause of action. It is well established that one should only do so on the ground that the cause of action is time-barred if it is a clear case. He submits that the question when the plaintiffs possessed sufficient relevant knowledge is a question of fact which is not appropriate to be decided at this stage. I agree. In my view this is a matter which must be investigated at trial. Whether it is done by way of a preliminary issue is a matter which may be decided hereafter.’


Rokison QC HHJ


[1990] 1 All ER 808


Limitation Act 1980


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedFirst National Comercial Bank plc v Humberts CA 27-Jan-1995
The plaintiff loaned money on the basis of a negligent survey by the defendant. The borrower subsequently defaulted, and the lender issued a writ. The defendant said that the claim was time barred.
Held: The court allowed the plaintiff’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.241657