Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

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: 1993 To: 1993

This page lists 10 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Pulleyn v Hall Aggregates (Thames Valley) Ltd (1993) 65 P & CR 276
1993


Land, Limitation

1 Citers


 
Nash v Eli Lilly and Co [1993] 1 WLR 782; [1993] 4 All ER 383
1993
CA
Purchas LJ
Limitation, Negligence
The court considered whether a solicitor acting for a potential plaintiff was considered to be an expert for the purposes of the section. Held: Purchas LJ said: "Of course as advice from a solicitor as to the legal consequences of the act or omission is not relevant his contribution can only consist of factual information. Moreover where constructive knowledge is under consideration through the channel of a solicitor this can only be relevant where it is established that the plaintiff ought reasonably to have consulted a solicitor at all. Thus it is for the defendant to establish not only that a solicitor whom the plaintiff might consult would have the necessary knowledge but also that it was reasonable to expect the plaintiff to consult him. This question was considered at some length in the judgment of Hidden J. and we can see no reason to depart from his general approach. ." and “The standard of reasonableness in connection with the observations and/or the effort to ascertain are therefore finally objective but must be qualified to take into consideration the position, and circumstances and character of the plaintiff . . In considering whether or not the inquiry is, or is not reasonable, the situation, character and intelligence of the plaintiff must be relevant”.
Purchas LJ: "It was not … the intention of Parliament to require for the purposes of section 11 and section 14 of the [1980] Act proof of knowledge of the terms in which it will be alleged that the act or omission of the defendants constituted negligence or breach of duty. What is required is knowledge of the essence of the act or omission to which the injury is attributable."
Limitation Act 1980 13(4)(b)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Nash v Eli Lilley and Co [1993] 4 All ER 395; [1993] 1 WLR 782
1993
CA
Purchas LJ
Limitation
The court was asked as to the extent and nature of knowledge required to start time running against a plaintiff in a negligence case.
Purchas LJ said: "It is to be noted that a firm belief held by the plaintiff that his injury was attributable to act or omission of the defendant, but in respect of which he thought it necessary to obtain reassurance or confirmation from experts, medical or legal or others, would not be regarded as knowledge until the result of his inquiries was known to him or, if he delayed in obtaining that confirmation, until the time at which it was reasonable for him to have got it . . " and "Of course, as advice from a solicitor as to the legal consequences of the act or omission is not relevant, his contribution can only consist of factual information. Moreover, where constructive knowledge is under consideration through the channel of a solicitor, this can only be relevant where it is established that the plaintiff ought reasonably to have consulted at all. Thus it is for the defendant to establish not only that a solicitor whom the plaintiff might consult would have the necessary knowledge but also that it was reasonable to expect the plaintiff to consult him."
Limitation Act 1980 14(3)
1 Citers



 
 Stubbings v Webb and Another; HL 10-Feb-1993 - Gazette, 10 February 1993; [1999] AC 498; [1993] 2 WLR 120; Times, 17 December 1992

 
 Broadley and Guy v Chapman and Co; CA 26-Jul-1993 - Ind Summary, 26 July 1993; Times, 06 July 1993; [1993] 4 Med L R 328
 
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Le Rififi Ltd Times, 02 August 1993; Ind Summary, 30 August 1993
2 Aug 1993
QBD

VAT, Limitation
One assessment covering numerous accounting periods constitutes a single global assessment. If any part of a global VAT assessment is time barred, then the whole assessment fails.
Finance Act 1985 22(1)
1 Citers



 
 Broadley v Guy Clapham and Co; CA 9-Sep-1993 - Independent, 09 September 1993; [1994] 4 All ER 439
 
Ward and Another v Foss Heathcote and Another v Foss Times, 29 November 1993; Ind Summary, 27 December 1993
29 Nov 1993
CA

Limitation
Following a change in legislation it was equitable to disapply limitation.
Administration of Justice Act 1982


 
 Restick v Crickmore; CA 3-Dec-1993 - Times, 03 December 1993; Ind Summary, 20 December 1993; Gazette, 26 January 1994; [1994] 1 WLR 420
 
Sheldon and Others v R H M Outhwaite (Underwriting Agencies) Ltd Times, 08 December 1993
8 Dec 1993
QBD

Limitation
Deliberate concealment could prevent the limitation period from running.
Limitation Act 1980 32
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.