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: 2001 To: 2001

This page lists 53 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Re Priory Garage (Walthamstow) Limited [2001] BPIR 144
2001
ChD
John Randall QC
Insolvency, Limitation
The court considered the relevance of a statutory limitation period in relation to applications to set aside transactions as being at an undervalue or as voidable preferences under section 238 to 241 of the 1986 Act. Applications to set aside transactions under the sections are generally actions on a specialty within the meaning of section 8 of the 1980 Act and subject to a 12 year limitation period accordingly; but where the substance of the claim is not to set aside a transaction, but to recover a sum of money, such applications will be governed by section 9, and thus subject to a six-year limitation period.
Insolvency Act 1986 238 - Limitation Act 1980 8
1 Citers



 
 Fennon v Anthony Hodari and Co; 2001 - [2001] Lloyds Rep PN 183
 
Michael Batt Charitable Trust v Adams (2001) 82 P&CR 406; [2001] 2 EGLR 92
2001
ChD
Laddie J
Land, Limitation
The court looked at what was required to establish adverse possession in a claim for land. Laddie J said: "The only factor that appears, at first sight, to point in the direction to exclude anyone, is the fact that Mr Higgs maintained and repaired the fence separating the disputed land from Rushymead . . A fence is a barrier. It keeps things in and it keeps things out. No doubt it is reasonable to assume in many cases that a person who maintains a fence is doing so for both purposes, but that is not necessarily so. Having read all the evidence and the transcript of the cross-examination, there is nothing in this case that suggests that Mr Higgs was doing anything other than putting up a sufficient barrier to keep his livestock in. This also is not unequivocal evidence of an intention to exclude others."
1 Citers


 
Gold v Mincoff Science and Gold Gazette, 18 January 2001
18 Jan 2001
ChD
Neuberger J
Professional Negligence, Land, Limitation
A sleeping partner in a business executed several charges over partnership property, unaware that the funds raised were being used for purposes other than the partnership business. Their solicitors admitted negligence in not advising them sufficiently closely as to the effect of the all monies nature of the charges. A claim was brought to recover money, but then enlarged when the creditor appreciated the extent of the all monies charge. The claimant sought damages for negligence from the solicitor. Held: The limitation defence succeeded only in part. Where the solicitor had chosen to hide the effect of the clause from his client on signing later charges, liability arising under earlier charges continued.
Limitation Act 1980
1 Citers


 
London Borough of Lambeth v Rumbelow Unreported 25 Jan 2001
25 Jan 2001
ChD
Etherton J
Land, Limitation
The court considered what would constitute permission to occupy land so as to destroy a claim for adverse possession. Etherton J said: "In order to establish permission in the circumstances of any case two matters must be established. Firstly, there must have been some overt act by the land owner or some demonstrable circumstances from which the inference can be drawn that permission was in fact given. It is, however, irrelevant whether the users were aware of those matters. …Secondly [it must be established that] a reasonable person would have appreciated that the user was with the permission of the land owner."
1 Citers


 
Senior and Another v Pearson and Ward (A Firm) [2001] EWCA Civ 229
26 Jan 2001
CA

Litigation Practice, Limitation
An amendment outside the limitation period against solicitors alleging a failure to advise was permitted, where the original allegation was simply that the solicitors had acted without or in disregard of instructions.
Limitation Act 1980
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Another v Caroline Graham and Another; CA 6-Feb-2001 - Gazette, 22 February 2001; Times, 13 February 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 117; [2001] Ch 804; [2001] 2 WLR 1293; (2001) 82 P & CR DG1; [2001] 18 EG 176; [2001] 2 EGLR 69; (2001) 82 P & CR 23; [2001] HRLR 27; [2001] 7 EGCS 161; [2001] NPC 29
 
J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Another v Graham and Another [2001] EWCA Civ 117
6 Feb 2001
CA

Land, Limitation
Leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Raja v Lloyds Bank Plc Gazette, 08 February 2001
8 Feb 2001
CA

Land, Limitation, Professional Negligence
The claimant's properties had been sold after repossession by a lender. He claimed damages for the negligent sales at an undervalue. He began the action after six years after the properties were sold, and asserted that the action was based upon the mortgages and that therefore the limitation period was twelve not six years. Assertions that the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee could give rise to an equitable duty of care were inconsistent with modern authority, and nor could a duty be dependent upon an implied contractual term. The limitation period is six years, and the claim was out of time.


 
 Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others, Fletcher and Others v Midland Bank Plc (No 2); HL 8-Feb-2001 - Gazette, 08 March 2001; Times, 09 February 2001; [2001] UKHL 5; [2001] 2 WLR 448; [2001] ICR 217; [2001] Emp LR 256; [2001] 3 All ER 947; [2001] 2 AC 455; [2001] IRLR 237; [2001] Pens LR 39; [2001] OPLR 1; [2001] 1 CMLR 46
 
Cave v Robinson Jarvis and Rolf [2001] EWCA Civ 245; [2001] PNLR 573; [2002] 1 WLR 581; [2001] Lloyd's Rep PN 290; 78 Con LR 1; [2001] PNLR 23; (2001) 17 Const LJ 262; [2001] CP Rep 66; [2001] 9 EGCS 229; [2001] NPC 36; [2001] Lloyds Rep PN 290
20 Feb 2001
CA
Potter, Sedley, Jonathan Parker LJ
Limitation, Professional Negligence
The court was asked as to the meaning of the word 'deliberate' as it appeared in section 32(2) of the 1980 Act.
Limitation Act 1980 32
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Glaister v Greenwood [2001] EWHC Ch 453; [2001] PNLR 602
26 Feb 2001
ChD
Collins J
Professional Negligence, Limitation

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Savings and Investment Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) v Fincken Times, 02 March 2001; Gazette, 20 April 2001
2 Mar 2001
ChD

Limitation, Litigation Practice
The process of testing whether a new cause of action was proposed by an amendment of pleadings to bring into question application of the Limitation Acts, was conducted by asking at what level of abstraction was it claimed that there were one or two causes. Is a different duty relied upon, the nature and extent of the breach, and what is the group of material facts relied upon.
Limitation Act 1980 35
1 Citers


 
Battersea Freehold and Leasehold Property Company Ltd v Wandsworth London Borough Council Gazette, 17 May 2001
2 Mar 2001
ChD
Rimer J
Land, Limitation
The tenant of the applicant had occupied land adjacent to the tenanted land and belonging to the council respondent for more than 12 years. The applicant sought to assert that he had acquired possessory title. The tenant had however shared the keys when requested. Held: The claimants appeal failed. Even if the tenant's use of the land had not been permissive, in order to establish adverse possession the claimant had to show that its tenant had intended to exclude the whole world at large from the disputed land; The sharing of the keys by the tenant indicated that he had not viewed himself as asserting exclusive possession, by excluding the world at large.

 
Crosse and Crosse (A Firm) v Lloyds Bank Plc [2001] EWCA Civ 366
16 Mar 2001
CA
Potter LJ, Sedley LJ, Jonathan Parker LJ
Professional Negligence, Limitation
Solicitors appealed a finding of professional negligence in the purchase of land which had been subject to restrictive covenants which had not been disclosed to the bank, saying that time had begun to run against the bank at a time when the bank accepted new clients as debtors under the security.
Limitation Act 1980 5 14A
[ Bailii ]
 
Ezekiel v Lehrer Times, 04 April 2001; Gazette, 17 May 2001
21 Mar 2001
ChD
Evans-Lombe J
Limitation
The claimant had given instructions to the defendant with regard to a charge. The defendant came to know that he had made an error, and when asked by the claimant, declined to answer, and referred the claimant to independent advice. The claimant now said that this amounted to a concealment of the truth such as to delay the onset of the limitation period. Held: The circumstances could have been discovered by the claimant from correspondence sent to him by the defendant. The deemed misleading by the defendant did not therefore operate to suspend the running of the limitation period, and the claim was out of time.
Limitation Act 1980 32(1)(b)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Steeds v Peverel Management Services Limited Times, 16 May 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 419
30 Mar 2001
CA

Limitation, Personal Injury, Litigation Practice, Professional Negligence
Where it was not the claimant's fault that proceedings had not been issued within the appropriate time limit, the judge when considering exercise of his discretion to admit the claim, should not be tempted to refuse to admit it on the basis that the claimant would have a clear claim for negligence against the solicitor who should have issued the proceedings. The judge was wrong to seek to distinguish the case and deny that the delay at issue related to periods only after the expiration of the limitation period. The judge had been wrong to conclude that the Civil Procedure rules required the claimant to have issued proceedings much earlier, since those rules could only affect the conduct of proceedings once they had been issued.
Limitation Act 1980 33(3)(a)
[ Bailii ]
 
Thurrock Borough Council v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions, and Another Times, 03 April 2001
3 Apr 2001
QBD

Planning, Limitation
The land owner claimed continuous use for more than ten years, to establish a defence to enforcement proceedings. Such a defence was for the land owner to establish, and required him to show continuity during the period, allowing for exclusion of times when enforcement proceedings were not available. It was not appropriate to apply legal principles from the law relating to abandonment except when accrued rights were asserted.

 
London Borough of Lambeth v Blackburn [2001] EWCA Civ 668
10 Apr 2001
CA

Land, Limitation
Renewed application for leave to appeal - granted.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Griffin and others v Clwyd Health Authority and others [2001] EWCA Civ 818
14 May 2001
CA

Personal Injury, Health and Safety, Limitation

Limitation Act 1980 33
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]

 
 Hampton v Minns; ChD 17-May-2001 - Gazette, 17 May 2001
 
Goomti Ramnarace v Harrypersad Lutchman [2001] UKPC 24; No 8 of 2000
21 May 2001
PC
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Millett, Lord Scott of Foscote
Land, Limitation, Commonwealth
(Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant had gone into possession of land by consent, and many years later declined to leave. The claimant said the period of her adverse possession was insufficient but she claimed a tenancy. The claimant asserted that she had gone into possession as a licensee, and that the limitation period could not commence until her licence was terminated. Adverse possession is possession inconsistent with and in denial of the title of the true owner. A person cannot be a tenant at will where it appears that there was no intention to create legal relations, and she must be taken to have entered into possession of the disputed land in July 1974 as an intending purchaser and as a tenant at will. That tenancy expired after one year, when the limitation period commenced. Her claim succeeded.
Real Property Limitation Ordinance 1940
1 Cites

[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
Richard Jonathan Brett Guise v John Drew [2001] EWHC Ch 410
8 Jun 2001
ChD
His Honour Judge Bowsher Q.C.
Land, Limitation
A right of way had been acquired by prescription, but its extent was disputed. It had been used for mainly residential purposes, but then to a greater extent for a different business use. Held: A right of way may be for one purpose, to the exclusion of others. It is a question of fact whether a right of way is for a limited purpose or purposes, or is a general right for all purposes. A right of way for a defunct family business cannot be enlarged into a right of way for business generally.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Khan and Wellcome Trust [2001] EWHC Ch 411
8 Jun 2001
ChD
Lurence Collins
Limitation

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Amanullah Khan and The Wellcome Trust [2001] EWHC Ch 411
13 Jun 2001
ChD
Mr Justice Lawrence Collins
Housing, Limitation
The authority had served notices on the second defendant, requiring him to execute works to bring a property up to a habitable condition. Eventually the authority executed the works themselves, and sought repayment from him of the costs. He resisted enforcement proceedings on the basis that claim was defeated by limitation, and the long delay. Held: The Act provided that 'the amount of any expenses and interest thereon due to a local authority . . . shall be a charge on the premises in respect of which the expenses were incurred'. The charge does not take effect until the demand becomes operative and time cannot therefore begin to run for the purposes of an action for possession until 21 days after service of the demand, and time does not begin to run until the demand is made. The appeal failed.
Housing Act 1985 - Limitation Act 1980 15(1)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
London Borough of Lambeth v Blackburn Gazette, 21 June 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 912; (2001) 82 P & CR 494
14 Jun 2001
CA
Lord Justice Clarke, Lord Justice Judge, Lord Justice Laws
Land, Limitation
The appellant had broken into an empty council owned flat, and subsequently occupied it. After twelve years the authority obtained a court order for possession. The court had held that the appellant had not had a sufficient animus possidendi since he had not at any time expected to live there for as more than a temporary expedient. He succeeded on appeal. The tenant had removed a padlock and provided his own Yale lock. Any inspection would have revealed an intention to assert ownership against the world. That he would have negotiated with the council if they had contacted him was not enough to defeat the claim. There was nothing in the appellants evidence to contradict the assertion of possession.
Clarke LJ said: "It is not perhaps immediately obvious why the authorities have required a trespasser to establish an intention to possess as well as actual possession in order to prove the relevant adverse possession. It seems to me that the answer lies in the fact that the possession must be adverse, that is adverse to the interest of the paper owner. It can only be adverse if the possession is apparent to the owner; that is, if it is manifest to the owner that the trespasser intends to maintain possession against the whole world including the owner. That does not mean that it must in fact be known to the owner, but that it must be manifested to him so that, if he were present at the property he would be aware that the trespasser had taken possession of it and had intended to keep others out." and
"It is thus of crucial importance that the trespasser's acts must be unequivocal. They must make it clear to the owner, if present at the land, that he intended to exclude the owner, as Slade J put it 'as best he can'" and "I would not for part think it appropriate to strain to hold that a trespasser who had established factual possession of the property for the necessary 12 years did not have the animus possidendi identified in the cases. I express that view for two reasons. The first is that the requirement that there be a sufficient manifestation of the intention provides protection for landowners and the second is that once it is held that the trespasser has factual possession it will very often be the case that he can establish the manifested intention."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Times Newspapers Ltd v Chohan Gazette, 26 July 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 964
22 Jun 2001
CA
Aldous LJ, Robert Walker LJ, Jonathan Parker LJ
Costs, Limitation
The limitation period on collection of an award of costs, must run from the date of the costs certificate. It was only at that point when it became enforceable. It would be an abuse to bring an action for enforce the costs award before that date. The word enforceable had to mean enforceable in a practical way. Until certified there was nothing to enforce.
Limitation Act 1980 24
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Clarke (Executor of the Will of Francis Bacon, Deceased) v Marlborough Fine Art (London) Ltd and Another Times, 05 July 2001
5 Jul 2001
ChD
Patten J
Agency, Trusts, Limitation
Francis Bacon sold his paintings through the defendant agents for many years. The original contractual arrangement grew into a fiduciary one. The claimants asserted that the defendants were in breach of that fiduciary duty, the defendants asserted that the relationship remained contractual, and that it was now time barred. Held: There may be a true constructive trust which would not be time barred, rather than a remedial constructive trust. The test was whether the trustee was a true trustee, whether of a constructive or an express trust. Nor was it clear that a court of equity would have time barred a claim in undue influence.
Limitation Act 1980 36(1)(f)
1 Citers


 
Disley v Levine (T/a Airtrak Levine Paragliding) Times, 29 August 2001; Gazette, 31 August 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1087; [2002] 1 WLR 785
11 Jul 2001
CA
Henry LJ
Transport, Personal Injury, Limitation
The claimant sought damages from her instructor, after being injured as a passenger trainee pilot of a paraglider. He responded that she was out of time, since the regulations applied. His appeal was refused. The system of regulation did not mention or encompass paragliders. No certificate of air-worthiness or air operator's certificate was required. The objective of the flight was instruction, not passage.
Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967 No 480 - Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Air Transport 1929 - Civil Aviation Act 1982
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Cachia and Others v Faluyi Times, 11 July 2001; Gazette, 19 July 2001
11 Jul 2001
CA

Personal Injury, Limitation, Human Rights
The words of the section had to be construed so as to make it compatible with the human rights convention. Accordingly the term 'action' in the Act was to be interpreted to mean an action where a writ was served. Children whose mother had been killed, had the human right to claim compensation for their loss of dependency. Whilst it was legitimate to impose certain restrictions on access to the courts, the effect of the words of the statute had not been considered or intended, and the court would read the section so as to make it compatible with the Act.
Fatal Accidents Act 1976 2(3)

 
Batchelor v Marlow and Another Gazette, 12 July 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1051; [2003] 1 WLR 764
12 Jul 2001
CA
Henry LJ, Tuckey LJ, Kay LJ
Land, Limitation
The applicant claimed parking rights as an easement acquired by prescription. At first instance the rights were recognised as an easement. The rights included parking during daylight hours during weekdays. The land-owner appealed on the ground that the extent of use claimed destroyed the owner's ability to use the land, to the point where his ownership was illusory. The court agreed, and declared that there was no easement if it extended to that point.
Tuckey LJ asked: "Does an exclusive right to park six cars for 9.5 hours every day of the working week leave the plaintiff without any reasonable use of his land, whether for parking or anything else?" and he gave the answer: "[The plaintiff's] right to use his land is curtailed altogether for intermittent periods throughout the week. Such a restriction would, I think, make his ownership of the land illusory."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Rhiannon Anderton v Clwyd County Council (2) [2001] EWHC QB 161
25 Jul 2001
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice McCombe
Litigation Practice, Limitation, Civil Procedure Rules
The claim form had been issued only just before the limitation period expired. Under the rules it would have been deemed to have been served on a Sunday, the day before the expiry of the period, but evidence suggested it was not received until after the expiration of the period. The defendant argued there was insufficient evidence of the date of posting to bring into effect the deeming provisions as to the date of service. No certificate had been supplied under 6.14. Held: There was no evidence as to the class of postage used, and no inference could be drawn that first class post had been used. The rules therefore deemed service out of time, as in fact had occurred. Nor would alternate service be ordered. This was a discretionary remedy, and the circumstances of this case did not justify it.
Civil Procedure Rules 6.7 6.14
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Regina (on the application of Beresford) v The City of Sunderland; CA 26-Jul-2001 - Times, 29 August 2001; Gazette, 13 September 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1218; [2002] QB 874
 
Biggs and Another v Sotnicks (A Firm) and others [2001] EWCA Civ 1356
31 Jul 2001
CA

Limitation, Professional Negligence, Contract

Limitation Act 1980 14A
[ Bailii ]

 
 Mirza v Birmingham Health Authority; QBD 31-Jul-2001 - [2001] EWHC QB 1
 
Scottish Equitable Plc v Miller Construction Ltd [2001] ScotCS 214; [2001] ScotHC 96
31 Aug 2001
IHCS
Lord Prosser, Lord Milligan, Lord Kingarth
Scotland, Construction, Limitation, Arbitration
The parties entered into a contract for the demolition and building of offices. They sought to refer differences to arbitration. The issue as to whether the long or short prescription period operated so as to time bar some parts of the claim. Held: Time began to run only from the time of the issue of the final certificate, and accordingly claims which might have been asserted at earlier times in the execution of the contract were not time barred.
Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1972 3 - Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 6, Sch 1 - Scottish Building Contract (with Quantities) January 1988
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
 
Orkney Islands Council for Suspension and Interdict [2001] ScotCS 222
21 Sep 2001
SCS

Scotland, Arbitration, Limitation
A notice was served seeking to refer a dispute to arbitration. By the time of the hearing the claim itself would be time barred, unless it could be established that service of the notice was enough to suspend time running. It was argued that the notice served to stop time running only conditional upon an arbitration being begun. The court decided that the issue of limitation could properly be determined by an arbitrator, and the court should not intervene.
Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 6
[ Bailii ]
 
Godwin v Swindon Borough Council [2002] 1 WLR 997; [2001] 4 All ER 641; [2001] EWCA Civ 1478
10 Oct 2001
CA
Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice May And Mr Justice Rimer
Limitation, Civil Procedure Rules, Personal Injury, Limitation
The claimant appealed against an order striking out his claim for personal injuries. The claim had been issued in time, but not served. An extension of time was granted, and the notice sent by first class post the day before that period expired. The defendant had claimed that the rules deemed service on the second day after posting, and therefore the day after expiry of the extension of time. In this case they had in fact received the notice on that last day. Did the deeming provision override the facts? Held: The provision should be read to allow for contrary evidence. The appeal was allowed. CPR 6.9 cannot be invoked to dispense with service "when what would be done is in substance that which CPR 7.6(3) forbids."
May LJ described Practice Directions as "subordinate to the rules" and as "at best a weak aid to the interpretation of the rules themselves."
CPR Part 6 contains general rules about service of documents and does not only apply to service of a claim form.
Civil Procedure Rules 6.7(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
University of Sussex v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Gazette, 01 November 2001
10 Oct 2001
ChD
Neuberger J
VAT, Limitation
The taxpayer had made a considered decision not to deduct certain input VAT claims against its payments made over a long period of time up to 1996. They later concluded that they should have made the deductions, and claimed them. The Commissioners asserted that the claims were now statute barred. Held: If the claim had been with section 80 and the regulations, it would now be time barred, but the non-exercise of a right to make a deduction, did not create a payment to the Commissioners of an amount which was not due to them. The claim was within the regulation, but not the section, and was not time barred.
Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 (1995/2518) reg 29 - Value Added Tax Act 1994 80 80(4)

 
Godwin v Swindon Borough Council [2002] 1 WLR 997; [2001] 4 All ER 641; [2001] EWCA Civ 1478
10 Oct 2001
CA
Lord Justice Pill, Lord Justice May And Mr Justice Rimer
Limitation, Civil Procedure Rules, Personal Injury, Limitation
The claimant appealed against an order striking out his claim for personal injuries. The claim had been issued in time, but not served. An extension of time was granted, and the notice sent by first class post the day before that period expired. The defendant had claimed that the rules deemed service on the second day after posting, and therefore the day after expiry of the extension of time. In this case they had in fact received the notice on that last day. Did the deeming provision override the facts? Held: The provision should be read to allow for contrary evidence. The appeal was allowed. CPR 6.9 cannot be invoked to dispense with service "when what would be done is in substance that which CPR 7.6(3) forbids."
May LJ described Practice Directions as "subordinate to the rules" and as "at best a weak aid to the interpretation of the rules themselves."
CPR Part 6 contains general rules about service of documents and does not only apply to service of a claim form.
Civil Procedure Rules 6.7(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 JJ Harrison (Properties) Ltd v Harrison; CA 11-Oct-2001 - [2001] EWCA Civ 1467; [2002] 1 BCLC 162
 
BP Exploration Operating Co Ltd v Chevron Transport (Scotland) Times, 19 October 2001; Gazette, 22 November 2001; [2001] UKHL 50; 2001 SLT 1394; 2002 SC (HL) 19; 2001 SCLR 1029; [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 1; [2002] 1 LLR 77; 2001 GWD 33-1316; [2003] 1 AC 197; [2001] 3 WLR 949
18 Oct 2001
HL
Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough Lord Millett
Limitation, Transport
A ship owned by the defenders caused substantial damage whilst moored at the claimant's docks. The claim was made against different members of the defendants as they asserted and denied responsibility. The last company asserted that the claim was now time barred. Held: Subject to interruption, the limitation period continued to run whatever the cause of the delay. For the purposes of the 1847 Act, any charterer, including a bareboat charterer was not the 'owner' of a vessel.
Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 6(4) - Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 74 - Zetland County Council Act 1974 4
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]

 
 Steedman, Clohosy, Smith, Kiernan, Newman, Creevy, Anderson v The British Broadcasting Corporation; CA 23-Oct-2001 - Gazette, 06 December 2001; Times, 13 December 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1534; [2002] EMLR 318; [2002] EMLR 17

 
 Deg-Deutsch Investitions Und Entwicklungsgesellschaft Mbh v Koshy (No 3) Gwembe Valley Development Co Ltd v Same (No 3); ChD 26-Oct-2001 - Times, 10 December 2001
 
McManus v Mannings Marine Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1668
29 Oct 2001
CA

Limitation, Personal Injury

[ Bailii ]
 
Savings and Investment Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) v Fincken Times, 15 November 2001; Gazette, 14 December 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 1639
6 Nov 2001
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Robert Walker and Lord Justice Keene
Litigation Practice, Limitation
When the court was asked to decide whether a proposed form of amendment to the pleadings would add an issue which was out of time, the court must look to the pleadings before and after the proposed amendment, and the factual issues which would have to be proved to support each version. The mere addition of a new remedy for the same cause of action was not a new claim.
Limitation Act 1980 3
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Babicki and Another v Rowlands (A Firm) [2001] EWCA Civ 1720; [2002] Lloyd's Rep PN 121
6 Nov 2001
CA

Professional Negligence, Limitation

[ Bailii ]
 
Leslie Cook, Winifred Cook v Norlands Limited Appeal No 51 of 2000
27 Nov 2001
PC

Land, Limitation, Employment, Estoppel
(Isle of Man) The claimants had been employed for 27 years managing an amusement centre. They had a lower salary, reflecting a promise that the tied accommodation was to be 'theirs' after 7 years. After dismissal, the company sought possession, and the claimants sought transfer of the freehold, and asserted a proprietary estoppel. However there was no evidence as to the details of any calculations made, and the claimants had continued to accept low wages long after the house might have been paid for. The claim of a contract was void for uncertainty, and past performance issues did not arise.
Law Reform (Enforcement of Contracts) Act 1956 (Isle of Man)
[ PC ] - [ PC ]
 
In re Pantone 485 Ltd [2001] EWHC 705 (Ch); [2002] 1 BCLC 266
29 Nov 2001
ChD
Richard Field QC HHJ
Company, Limitation
The respondent Bain was a director of a number of connected companies, including Smarturgent and Pantone, both of which he indirectly controlled. The liquidator of both companies brought proceedings against Bain on a number of claims for breach of duty as a director, including that he had caused Smarturgent to spend a total of over £86,000 for the benefit of Pantone. It was argued on behalf of Bain that this claim was time-barred, but the liquidator relied on section 21(1)(b). Held: Field QC responded to the submission saying: "The claim against Mr Bain is not that he transferred Smarturgent's money to himself but that he caused the company's money to be spent not for Smarturgent's benefit but for Pantone's. Mr Shaw submitted that the fact that the machine was acquired and the rentals paid for the benefit of Pantone, a company in which Mr Bain had an indirect controlling interest through his shareholding in AS2 meant that he was to be regarded as having received the trust property . . In my judgment, as a matter of basic principle where a fiduciary uses his beneficiary's money to confer a benefit on a company he controls he is denying the beneficiary's title to the money for his own purposes and this amounts to a conversion for his own use. The same is true where a fiduciary causes his beneficiary to incur a liability for the benefit of a company which the fiduciary controls. Since this is what the applicant is in substance alleging under the MOVP claim, I hold that this claim is within section 21(1)(b) of the Limitation Act and is therefore not statute barred."
Limitation Act 1980 2(1)(b)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Loutchansky v The Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (Nos 2 to 5); CA 5-Dec-2001 - Times, 07 December 2001; Gazette, 06 February 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 1805; [2002] 2 WLR 640; [2002] QB 783; [2002] Masons CLR 35; [2002] EMLR 14; [2002] 1 All ER 652
 
Law Society v Southall Times, 07 January 2002; [2002] BPIR 336
14 Dec 2001
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Mantell and Mr Justice Wall
Civil Procedure Rules, Legal Professions, Limitation
In making a strike out decision under Part 24, the court of first instance was exercising a discretion which an appellate court should be reluctant to disturb. The court should only interfere in the case of a manifest error. The Law Society had intervened in the legal practice of the respondent's late husband. The court had struck out a claim by the Society that the home had not been validly transferred to her. That decision was not outside those open to the court on the evidence. There was no applicable limitation period in a case concerning gifts made by the debtor.
Civil Procedure Rules Part 24
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Horne-Roberts (a Child) v Smithkline Beecham plc and Another Times, 10 January 2002; Gazette, 21 February 2002; [2001] EWCA Civ 2006; [2002] 1 WLR 1662
18 Dec 2001
CA
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, President, Lady Justice Hale and Lord Justice Keene
Limitation
The court has a power to order substitution of a party though the limitation period, and even the 'long stop' limitation period had expired. The claimant child sought damages after a vaccination. The batch had been attributed to the wrong manufacturer, and the error only came to light outside the limitation period. It was said that the Product Liability directive did not operate as a limitation period but extinguished the right of action, and so was not covered by rule 19.5. Held: The distinction did not have the value claimed, and the order substituting the respondent was appropriate. The intention had been to sue a person satisfying a particular description, namely the manufacturer of the batch.
Limitation Act 1980 11A(3) - Consumer Protection Act 1987 - Civil Procedure Rules 19.5 - Product Liability Directive (85/374/EEC)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Del Castillo v Coubrough [2001] EWCA Civ 2050
20 Dec 2001
CA

Limitation

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