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: 1998 To: 1998

This page lists 37 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Jonathan Andrew Mcevoy v A A Welding and Fabrication Ltd [1998] PIQR 266; [1997] EWCA Civ 2921
1998
CA

Personal Injury, Limitation
Where a first writ issued within the primary limitation period is itself ineffective (although not a nullity) through having been issued variously without consent against a company in liquidation. Held: The Walkley principle does not apply to defeat in limine a second action, notwithstanding that in each of those cases the defect was recognised to be curable by the late grant of leave.
Limitation Act 1980 33
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Smith v Leicestershire Health Authority [1998] EWCA Civ 107; [1998] Lloyd's LR (Med) 77
29 Jan 1998
CA
Roch LJ, Mantell LJ and Sir Patrick Russell
Professional Negligence, Limitation
The plaintiff appealed a finding that she had sufficient knowledge of her possible claim for medical negligence against the defendants, and that she was out of time. She had known of her condition, but said she had no sufficient reason to see that it might have arisen from the negligence now found. Held: The court looked at whether the claimant was in a position where she should reasonably have been aware of the cause her loss: 'what would the reasonable person have done placed in the situation of the plaintiff?' The court accepted that her "individual characteristics which might distinguish her from the reasonable woman should be disregarded. Thus her fortitude, her lack of any bitterness at becoming a tetraplegic and the determination and devotion she has shown to making herself as independent and useful a member of her family and society as she can, which have surpassed what might be expected, are to be put on one side. " Against this background "there was no basis on which the judge could accept the defendant’s submission that sometime in the 1970’s at the latest, the plaintiff should have taken advice. " She was told in 1984 that she had no possible claim. The defendant had not established constructive knowledge in the plaintiff, and the appeal succeeded.
Limitation Act 1980 11 14
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Hydro Agri Espana SA (Owners of the Cargo Lately Laden on Board the Vessel Fairway, ex Celtic Commander) v Charles M Willie and Co (Shipping) Limited Times, 05 March 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 273
18 Feb 1998
CA

Limitation, Transport
A valid writ which had not been served because of pending foreign litigation, could not be extended in validity beyond the limitation period appropriate for that action.
[ Bailii ]
 
West Bromwich Building Society v Mander Hadley and Co Times, 09 March 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 371
27 Feb 1998
CA

Limitation
Writs which had been issued with no genuine basis of any claim but only to protect against limitation expiry, were an abuse of the process of court and were to be struck out.
[ Bailii ]
 
Dunlop v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Times, 17 March 1998; Gazette, 29 April 1998
17 Mar 1998
CA

Torts - Other, Limitation
Malicious prosecution tort only becomes actionable, and limitation period only starts from, the date when prosecution process is completed.

 
London Borough of Hillingdon v ARC Limited Gazette, 20 May 1998; Times, 04 May 1998; Gazette, 16 April 1998; [1999] Ch 139; [1998] EWCA Civ 657; [1998] 3 EGLR 18; [1999] BLGR 282; [1998] 3 WLR 754; [1998] RVR 242; [1998] 39 EG 202
7 Apr 1998
CA
Nourse, Potter, Mummery LJJ
Land, Limitation
The company sought compensation for land taken under compulsory purchase powers by the defendants several years before. It now appealed against the defeat of its claim as time-barred. Held: The appeal failed. The limitation period for a claim for a compensation payment runs from the date of the entry into possession of the land by the acquiring authority, even though compensation had not yet been set by the Lands Tribunal.
Potter LJ said that the answer to the question "When does a cause of action to recover a sum recoverable by virtue of any enactment accrue?" is to be found in the proper construction of the statute giving the right to recover.
Nourse LJ said: "it is established by authority that a cause of action for a sum recoverable by virtue of an enactment "accrues" notwithstanding that it remains to be quantified and, further, the quantification may have to be made by a tribunal other than a court of law."
Limitation Act 1980 9 - Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 11
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Henderson v Temple Pier Company Limited; CA 23-Apr-1998 - Gazette, 20 May 1998; Times, 02 May 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 690
 
Philip Andrew Green, Jennifer Ann Green v Dorothy Esther Wheatley (deceased), Alan Frederick Wheatley CA Civ 730
28 Apr 1998
CA
Swinton Thomas LJ, Potter Lj
Litigation Practice, Land, Limitation
The applicant sought leave out of time to appeal against a finding by the judge that neither of the two parties claiming title could establish any title. The applicant was acting in person, had had real and explained difficulties in finding documents, and the judge's decision clearly anticipated some further order. Nevertheless, such disputes regularly drive the parties to bankruptcy, and they should be encouraged to find a settlement.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 O'Driscoll v Dudley Health Authority; CA 30-Apr-1998 - [1998] EWCA Civ 747; [1998] Lloyds Law Reports: Medical 210
 
Willison v Shaftesbury Plc [1998] EWCA Civ 822
12 May 1998
CA

Limitation
Leave to appeal
[ Bailii ]
 
Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v Waterloo Real Estate Inc Times, 13 May 1998
13 May 1998
ChD

Land, Limitation
The owner of a party wall who had allowed a neighbour exclusive use of it without objection for a period over twelve years, could lose his interest in the wall by the adverse possession of that neighbour.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Marion Clark v L A Fiegel and Paul Stapley T/A Corporate Balloon Company; Paul Stapley and Payne Marsh Stillwell (a Firm) [1998] EWCA Civ 971
11 Jun 1998
CA

Transport, Personal Injury, Limitation
Injury in inflated balloon - defence under limitation under Warsaw Convention - arguable - leave to appeal granted.
[ Bailii ]
 
Bibby v Marguerite Stirling [1998] EWCA Civ 994
12 Jun 1998
CA

Land, Limitation

[ Bailii ]
 
A B and others v Liverpool City Council; Nugent Care Society (Formerly Catholic Social Services [Liverpool]) and Trustees of National Children's Home and Orphanage Registered [1998] EWCA Civ 1000
15 Jun 1998
CA

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice, Limitation

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Piper v West Kent Health Authority and others [1998] EWCA Civ 1104
29 Jun 1998
CA

Professional Negligence, Limitation

[ Bailii ]
 
London Borough of Bromley v Jeremy Daniel Morritt [1998] EWCA Civ 1239
20 Jul 1998
CA

Land, Limitation
The defendant sought an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal. He had been ordered to remove a wall which the claimant said enclosed what was part of the highway, and which the defendant said he had acquired by adverse possession. Held: It was arguable that a mandatory injunction should not have been granted and leave was given.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Paragon Finance Plc (Formerly Known As National Home Loans Corporation Plc v D B Thakerar and Co (a Firm); Ranga and Co (a Firm) and Sterling Financial Services Limited; CA 21-Jul-1998 - Times, 07 August 1998; Gazette, 29 July 1998; Gazette, 16 September 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 1187; [1999] 1 All ER 400; [1998] EWCA Civ 1249
 
Sophia Mary Hayward v Professor W J W Sharrard [1998] EWCA Civ 1317
28 Jul 1998
CA

Limitation

[ Bailii ]
 
Norman Milner v Hepworth Heating Limited [1998] EWCA Civ 1315
28 Jul 1998
CA

Personal Injury, Limitation

[ Bailii ]
 
Von Goetz v Rogers [1998] EWCA Civ 1328
29 Jul 1998
CA

Limitation, Contract

Limitation Act 1980 5 6
[ Bailii ]
 
Lowsley and Another v Forbes (Trading As I E Design Services) Times, 24 August 1998; Gazette, 16 September 1998; [1998] UKHL 34; [1998] 3 All ER 897; [1998] 3 WLR 501; [1999] 1 AC 329
29 Jul 1998
HL
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Limitation, Litigation Practice
The plaintiffs, with the leave of the court, had obtained garnishee and charging orders nisi against the debtor 11 and a half years after they had obtained a consent judgment. Held: An application by the judgment debtor to set aside the orders on the ground that they were statute barred under section 24(1) should be refused. A judgment can be enforced after six years, but not any claim for interest on that judgment. Execution was not a fresh action and so was not caught by the statutory restriction. Execution has historically been treated other than as a separate action. s24(1) does not apply to proceedings by way of execution of a judgment in the same action: the expression "action upon any judgment" in s24(1) means, as it did in s2(4) of the 1939 Act, bringing a "fresh action" upon a judgment for another judgment. It did not include the execution of an existing judgment, which could proceed despite the expiration of more than 6 years from the judgment.
Limitation Act 1980 24(1) 24(2) - Supreme Court of Judicature (1873) Amendment Act 1875
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Gotha City v Sotheby's and Another; Federal Republic of Germany v Same Times, 09 October 1998
9 Sep 1998
QBD
Moses J
Limitation, Torts - Other
Limitation does not run in favour of a thief. A painting stolen during the war and dealt with by those knowing its true origin remained in the ownership of the original owner however long it had been held by someone who was not a purchaser in good faith. Moses J said: "In resolving the disputes as to foreign law, I must be guided by the following principles:
(1) when faced with conflicting evidence about foreign law, I must resolve differences in the same way as in the case of other conflicting evidence as to facts (Bumper Development Corporation Ltd v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [1991] 1 WLR 1362 at 1368G);
(2) where the evidence conflicts I am bound to look at the effect of the foreign sources on which the experts rely as part of their evidence in order to evaluate and interpret that evidence and decide between the conflicting testimony (Bumper Corporation at 1369H ;
(3) I should not consider passages contained within foreign sources of law produced by the experts to which those experts have not themselves referred (Bumper Corporation at 1369D to G);
(4) it is not permissible to reject uncontradicted expert evidence unless it is patently absurd (Bumper Corporation at 1371B);
(5) In considering foreign sources of law I should adopt those foreign rules of construction of which the experts have given evidence (this principle underlies the principle that an English court must not conduct its own researches into foreign law);
(6) whilst an expert witness may give evidence as to his interpretation as to the meaning of a statute, it is not for the expert to interpret the meaning of a foreign document. His evidence will be limited to giving evidence as to the proper approach, according to the relevant foreign rules of construction to that document"."
Limitation Act 1980 4
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Breda Fucine Meridionali v Commission T-127/96; [1998] EUECJ T-127/96
15 Sep 1998
ECFI

Limitation
ECFI State aid - Article 93, paragraph 2 of the EC Treaty - Communication opening procedure - Aid not explicitly mentioned - Assistance to businesses located in disadvantaged areas - Restructuring - Recovery of aid - Limitation Period.
[ Bailii ]
 
Ansaldo Energia C-280/96 [1998] EUECJ C-280/96
15 Sep 1998
ECJ

Limitation
ECJ (Principles Of Community Law) Recovery of sums paid but not due - Procedural time-limits under national law - Interest.
[ Bailii ]
 
Ansaldo Energia Spa v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato and others C-281/96 C-281/96; [1998] EUECJ C-281/96
15 Sep 1998
ECJ

Limitation
ECJ (Principles Of Community Law) Recovery of sums paid but not due - Procedural time-limits under national law - Interest.
[ Bailii ]
 
JFS (UK) Limited Tilghman Wheelabrator Limited v Dwr Cymru Cyf Gazette, 14 October 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 1443
18 Sep 1998
CA

Limitation
A positive averment by defendant short of a claim for relief did not constitute a 'claim' under the section, and the judge had jurisdiction to allow a later amendment claiming relief as an original counterclaim. It was not barred either under RSC 20 (5)
Limitation Act 1980 35(3) - Rules of the Supreme Court Ord 20 r(5)(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Darlington Building Society; Abbey National Plc v O'Rourke James Scourfield and Mccarthy (Sued As a Firm) Times, 20 November 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 1664
3 Nov 1998
CA

Limitation, Litigation Practice
In proceedings against solicitors alleging matters of one sort, the plaintiff was not allowed to amend his case to add new causes of action which were then limitation barred. In this case a new set of facts would need to be pleaded and proved.
[ Bailii ]
 
Margaret Patricia Briody (Formerly Moore) v St Helens and Knowsley Area Health Authority [1998] EWCA Civ 1682
4 Nov 1998
CA

Limitation, Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]
 
Pamela Helen Phelps v Mayor and Burgesses London Borough of Hillingdon Times, 09 November 1998; Gazette, 25 November 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 1686; [1999] 1 WLR 500; [1998] ELR 38
4 Nov 1998
CA
Stuart-Smith LJ
Professional Negligence, Education, Limitation
The plaintiff claimed damages for the negligent failure of an educational psychologist employed by a local authority to identify that the plaintiff was dyslexic. Held: An educational psychologist has no duty of care to a child, as opposed to her employer, in failing to diagnose dyslexia which was not an injury but a congenital condition: (Evans LJ) "dyslexia is not itself an injury and I do not see how failure to ameliorate or mitigate its effects can be an injury." No economic loss damages occurred until the psychologist adopted a particular duty to the child.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Ward v British Coal Corporation and Norton Plc (Trading As Norton Chemical Process Products) [1998] EWCA Civ 1705
6 Nov 1998
CA

Limitation

[ Bailii ]
 
Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd v John Clarkson Spink [1998] EWCA Civ 1783
17 Nov 1998
CA

Professional Negligence, Limitation

[ Bailii ]
 
Chapman v Thornally [1998] EWCA Civ 1792
19 Nov 1998
CA

Personal Injury, Limitation

Limitation Act 1980 33(1)
[ Bailii ]
 
Steffens v Council and Commission T-222/97; [1998] EUECJ T-222/97
25 Nov 1998
ECFI

European, Limitation
ECJ The limitation period laid down in Article 43 of the Statute of the Court of Justice in respect of actions brought against the Community in matters concerning non-contractual liability cannot begin to run before all the requirements governing the obligation to make good the damage are satisfied and, in particular, in cases in which liability stems from a legislative measure, before the injurious effects of the measure have been produced.
As regards the injury suffered by producers of milk and milk products who, following their entry into non-marketing or conversion undertakings under Regulation No 1078/77, were unable by operation of Regulation No 857/84 to obtain a reference quantity or, consequently, to market any quantity of milk exempt from the additional levy, the limitation period started to run on the date on which, following the expiry of their non-marketing undertaking, the producers concerned could have resumed deliveries of milk if they had not been refused a reference quantity; that is to say, in cases where the undertaking expired before the date on which Regulation No 857/84 entered into force, time started to run on that date.
Moreover, since the damage was not caused instantaneously but continued to be sustained from day to day for a certain period as a result of the maintenance in force of an illegal measure, the time-bar under Article 43 of the Statute applies, with respect to the date of the event which interrupted the limitation period, to the period more than five years prior to that date and does not affect rights which arose during subsequent periods.
So far as regards, specifically, the notion of an event which interrupts a limitation period, the waiver of the right to plead limitation - provided for by the Communication of the Council and the Commission concerning the subsequent adoption of Regulation No 2187/93 which provided for an offer of compensation to the producers concerned - does not constitute such an event. The Communication merely provided for a self-imposed restriction of the right to plead limitation. The producers were able to rely on that waiver in the circumstances referred to in Regulation No 2187/93, since it ceased to have effect at the end of the period allowed for accepting the compensation offer, from which time, in the absence of acceptance of the offer or commencement of proceedings, the institutions once again became entitled to plead limitation.
[ Bailii ]
 
Linda Anne Roberts v Adrian John Winbow (3) Times, 12 January 1999; Gazette, 27 January 1999; [1998] EWCA Civ 1917
4 Dec 1998
CA
Lord Justice Roch, And Mrs Justice Hale
Limitation, Professional Negligence
The plaintiff was treated for depression by the defendant by prescription of drugs. She sufferred a reaction, but now claimed that the doctor's slow reaction caused her to suffer lasting injury. The question on appeal was, if a plaintiff suffers injuries some of which the plaintiff knows to be attributable to the act or omission of the defendant which is alleged to constitute negligence, but the main part of which is not to the plaintiff’s knowledge attributable in whole or in part to the act or omission of the defendant which is alleged to constitute negligence, does the three year period commence when the plaintiff has knowledge that the lesser part of the injury is attributable, or does the three year period start only when the plaintiff has knowledge that the greater part of the injury is attributable? The discovery of a cause of action was at the point where a plaintiff discovered that a lesser part of her injuries were attributable to the cause, not later when the majority was attributed, and limitation ran accordingly.
Limitation Act 1980 11(4)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Mahomed v Bank of Baroda Times, 10 December 1998; Gazette, 10 December 1998; [1998] EWCA Civ 1776
10 Dec 1998
CA

Limitation, Banking
A claim against a bank for repayment of a deposit does not of itself restart the limitation period on a claim, but where a customer revoked a demand, asking for payment at next maturity, the contract continued and the limitation period started afresh.
Limitation Act 1980
1 Cites


 
Byrne and Byrne v Hall Pain and Foster (a Firm) and others Times, 08 January 1999; Gazette, 03 February 1999; [1998] EWCA Civ 1939; [1999] 1 WLR 1849
11 Dec 1998
CA
Simon Brown, Otton, Schiemann LJJ
Limitation, Professional Negligence
The cause of action in an action for professional negligence in purchase of land ran from the date of exchange of contracts not completion, and the limitation period was to be calculated accordingly.
Limitation Act 1980
[ Bailii ]
 
Richardson v Quercus Limited [1998] ScotCS 112; 1999 SC 278
24 Dec 1998
IHCS
Lord Abernethy and Lord Johnston and Lord Prosser
Scotland, Limitation
The pursuer owned a flat on the second and top floors of a building damaged by renovation works carried out by the defenders to the basement and ground floor of the same building. He relied on a letter by the defenders' loss adjusters confirming that they had no objection to the pursuer instructing the necessary remedial works to his property but which stated that it was written "without prejudice to liability". Held: The letter with previous correspondence, amounted to a relevant acknowledgment within the section of the subsistence of an obligation to make reparation which would otherwise have been extinguished by the five year negative prescription. That subsection provides that in order to constitute a relevant acknowledgement there must be an unequivocal written admission clearly acknowledging that the obligation still subsists.
Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 10(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.