swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Limitation - From: 1990 To: 1990
This page lists 7 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Greater Glasgow Health Board v Baxter Clark and Paul 1990 SC 237
1990
SCS
Lord Clyde
Scotland, Limitation
Outer House Court of Session - Lord Clyde held (obiter) that the ordinary and natural meaning of the phrase "caused as aforesaid" included the distinct ingredient of causation by negligence: "The question is one of the interpretation of section 11(3) . . In my view . . the subsection looks for an awareness not only of the fact of loss having occurred, but the fact that it is a loss caused by negligence . . I do consider that the ordinary and natural meaning of the phrase ["caused as aforesaid"] involves an inclusion of the ingredient of causation by fault. The construction advocated by the defenders does not seem to me to give sufficient recognition to the presence of the critical three words. Indeed, if Parliament had intended what the defenders submit is the proper construction, the words could have been altogether omitted. Counsel for the defenders argued that it was necessary to refer to the fact that the loss was loss resulting from an act, neglect or default because it was with that that the section was concerned. As senior counsel for the defenders put it, the critical phrase was inserted to draw attention back to section 11(1) to show the kind of loss of which the creditor has to be aware without making awareness of the fact of causation an essential for the prescriptive period to start running. But the whole section is concerned with claims for reparation which involve damnum caused by injuria and it does not seem to me that the critical words could have been added simply as a reminder of that. They must be there for some purpose and they must be given some meaning. In accordance with the ordinary use of the language which is used, awareness of loss having occurred is not enough. What the subsection requires is awareness of loss caused by negligence having occurred.
Furthermore as senior counsel for the pursuers submitted, the logic of the scheme points to a requirement of knowledge that the right of action exists before the obligation is deemed to be enforceable and it would be illogical to omit one of the essential components of the right of action, namely the causation of the loss by fault. Even more compelling to my mind was his further submission that if it is only knowledge of the fact of loss, injury or damage having occurred which is intended, it is difficult to give much content to the reference to reasonable diligence. The more likely context for reasonable diligence is in the steps that may be taken after loss has been sustained to discover the cause of it . ."
Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
1 Citers
Iron Trade Mutual Insurance Co Ltd v J K Buckenham Ltd [1990] 1 All ER 808
1990
Rokison QC HHJ
Limitation, Litigation Practice
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."
Limitation Act 1980
1 Citers
Bell v Peter Browne and Co; CA 1990 - [1990] 2 QB 495
Donovan v Gwentoys Ltd; HL 1990 - [1990] 1 WLR 472; [1990] 1 All ER 1018
Darlington Building Society and Abbey National Plc v O'Rourke James Scourfield and McCarthy [1990] 1 LLR 33
1990
Sir Iain Glidewell
Limitation
The plaintiffs sought to amend their claim to add an assertion that the defendant solicitors' duty of confidentiality was lost by virtue of their clients' fraudulent intent, and the possible knowledge of the defendant solicitors of that intent. It was argued that this was a new head of claim, and that it was statute barred.
1 Citers
National Westminster Bank v Powney [1991] Ch 339; [1990] 2 WLR 1084; [1990] 2 All ER 416; [1990] 134 SJ 28
1990
CA
Slade LJ
Banking, Limitation
The limitation period has nothing to do with the procedural machinery of enforcing a judgment when one was obtained.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Guidera v NEI Projects (India) Ltd CA Tr No 60 of 1990
30 Jan 1990
CA
Limitation
The word "attributable" in the Act means "capable of being attributed", rather than "caused by".
1 Cites
1 Citers
