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: 2004 To: 2004

This page lists 36 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Re Yates (A Bankrupt) [2004] All ER (D) 373; [2005] BIPR 476
2004

Charles J
Limitation, Insolvency
The court considered the application of the limitation to a claim by a trustee in bankruptcy to set aside a transaction at an undervalue. Held: Charles J: "If there is a limitation period, the passages in Muir Hunter suggest that in the case of a claim by a trustee in bankruptcy begins to run from the date of the bankruptcy order. Counsel for the trustee made the same submission on the basis that that is the date when the cause of action accrued to the trustee. I agree."
1 Citers


 
The Law Society v Sephton and Co and others [2004] EWHC 544 (Ch)
2004
ChD
Mr Michael Briggs QC
Limitation
The Law Society claimed in negligence against the defendant firm of accountants who had wrongly certified the accounts of a firm of solicitors. The Society sought to recover the payments it had made from its compensation fund. The defendant pleaded limitation. Held: The court ruled against the Society holding that the cause of action had accrued before 16 May 1996 and that Sephton & Co were not estopped from relying upon a limitation defence. A risk, produced by a negligent act or omission, of an adverse condition arising at some time in the future does not constitute damage sufficient to complete a tortious cause of action.
Limitation Act 1980 2
1 Citers


 
Williams v Fanshaw Porter and Hazelhurst [2004] EWCA Civ 157; Times, 27 February 2004; Gazette, 25 March 2004; [2004] PNLR 544; [2004] 1 WLR 3185
18 Feb 2004
CA
Mr Justice Brooke Lord Justice Mance Mr Justice Park
Limitation, Professional Negligence
The claimant alleged that her solicitors had concealed from her the fact that they had entered a consent order which dismissed her claim for medical negligence. Held: The solicitor had failed to inform the client that her original claim against a doctor had been struck out although he was aware at the time that it was his duty to do so. The result was to postpone commencement of the limitation period against the claimant. The relationship of solicitor and client created a particular duty of disclosure.
Park J said: "ii) Although the concealed fact must have been relevant to the right of action, the paragraph does not say, and in my judgment does not require, that the defendant must have known that the fact was relevant to the right of action. In most cases where s.32(1)(b) applies the defendant probably will have known that the fact or facts which he concealed were relevant, but that is not essential. All that is essential is that the fact must actually have been relevant, whether the defendant knew that or not. The paragraph does of course require that the fact was one which the defendant knew, because otherwise he could not have concealed it. But it is not necessary in addition that the defendant knew that the fact was relevant to the claimant's right of action. iv) The requirement is that the fact must be 'deliberately concealed'. It is, I think, plain that, for concealment to be deliberate, the defendant must have considered whether to inform the claimant of the fact and decided not to. I would go further and accept that the fact which he decides not to disclose either must be one which it was his duty to disclose, or must at least be one which he would ordinarily have disclosed in the normal course of his relationship with the claimant, but in the case of which he consciously decided to depart from what he would normally have done and to keep quiet about it." Some of the claims succeeded and other failed.
Limitation Act 1980 32(1)(b)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Carlton Rattansingh (Legal personal representative of the estate of Joseph Rattansingh) v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago Kanadhar Doopan (Comptroller of Customs and Excise) [2004] UKPC 15
2 Mar 2004
PC
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell
Commonwealth, Torts - Other, Customs and Excise, Limitation
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) Tyres were seized by the second respondent upon being imported in 1984, but proceedings were not taken to forfeit and condemn the goods. The plaintiff sought their return: the defendant argued limitation. Held: There was no answer to the plea of limitation. New grounds could not be advanced at the hearing.
[ PC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Haward and Others v Fawcetts (A Firm) and Another [2004] EWCA Civ 240
11 Mar 2004
CA
Mr Justice Charles Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice Parker
Professional Negligence, Limitation
The court looked at the date from which the limitation period ran in an action for professional negligence: "It is clear from the words of the section itself . . that it is concerned with knowledge of facts, as opposed to knowledge of matters of law. In particular, subsection (9) specifically excludes knowledge that the defendant acted negligently." (Jonathan Parker L.J)
Limitation Act 1980
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
DFS Furniture Company Plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [2004] EWCA Civ 243; Times, 19 March 2004; Gazette, 08 April 2004
16 Mar 2004
CA
Lord Justice May The Hon Mr Justice Parker Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, Mr
VAT, Limitation
The taxpayers said that the Commissioners' assessment to VAT was out of time, and appealed a finding that it was not. They said that time should run from the point at which the Commissioners knew the facts upon which the assessment was based. The Commissioners argued that time could not begin to run until the decision in the case of Primback upon which the assessment was based. Held: The decision of a court did not count as 'facts' for limitation purposes. Use of the phrase 'evidence of facts' emphasised that interpretation. The assessments were out of time.
Value Added Tax Act 1994 78A(2) 80(4A)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Daniels v Thompson [2004] EWCA Civ 307; Times, 23 March 2004; [2007] Lloyd's Rep PN 16
18 Mar 2004
CA
The Hon Mr Justice Gray Lord Justice Dyson Lord Justice Carnwath
Professional Negligence, Limitation
The executor brought an action against the solicitor who had advised his client in connection with the transfer of her house in which she was to continue to live, saying he should have advised her that the gift would not protect her from Inheritance Tax liability because she continued to live in the house. Held: In this case the claim was statute barred in any event, but had the claim continued, it would have been asked when the loss occurred, and it would have been at the date of the gift, and not at any later date. Accordingly there would have been no damages to claim as by the executor, and the claim would have also failed for this reason. The court considered "inadequate transactions": "There have been several cases where a negligent person (usually a solicitor) failed adequately to protect the client's interests and/or procured less valuable rights for the client than should have been procured and/or did not secure for the client that to which he or she was entitled. In each of these cases the court has held that the client suffered loss when what I shall for convenience call "the inadequate transaction" was concluded, and not at the later date when the risk against which the solicitor had failed to provide protection eventuated."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Morshead Mansions Ltd v PJD Langford and others [2004] EWCA Civ 430
29 Mar 2004
CA

Limitation, Professional Negligence

[ Bailii ]

 
 Bajwa and others v Furini; ChD 2-Apr-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 412
 
Hodges v Northampton County Council and Another [2004] EWCA Civ 526
29 Apr 2004
CA

Torts - Other, Limitation

[ Bailii ]
 
Ridgeway Motors (Isleworth) Ltd v Altis LTL 21 May 2004
21 May 2004
ChD

Insolvency, Limitation
The company sought to strike out a winding up petition presented by the respondents, saying a winding up petition was by way of an action, and was barred by statute after six years. Held: A winding up petition was not an action within the section and was not time barred after 6 years.
Limitation Act 1980 38(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Hashtroodi v Hancock [2004] EWCA Civ 652; Times, 04 June 2004; [2004] 1 WLR 3206
27 May 2004
CA
Lord Justice Thorpe Mr Justice Bennett Lord Justice Dyson
Civil Procedure Rules, Limitation
The claimant had issued proceedings in time, but then the limitation period expired before it was served, and in the meantime the limitation period had expired. The defendant appealed against an automatic extension of time for service granted to the claimant. Held: The Rules should generally be interpreted without reference to case law under the old rules. The court had an unfettered discretion to extend time for service where there was good reason. A more calibrated approach was not necessary. If there was a good reason for the delay, and extension would normally be granted, but the court might well refuse one where the reason was weaker. This was a matter of principle, and the court declined further to expand upon it. In this case the reason was not good, and the extension should not have been granted.
Dyson LJ said: "It has often been said that a solicitor who leaves the issue of a claim form almost until the expiry of the limitation period, and then leaves service of the claim form until the expiry of the period of service is imminent courts disaster." and "It follows that this is a case where there is no reason for the failure to serve other than the incompetence of the claimant's legal representatives. Although this is not an absolute bar, it is a powerful reason for refusing to grant an extension of time."
Civil Procedure Rules 7.5(2)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom [2004] ECHR 727; [2005] ECHR 921
8 Jun 2004
ECHR
Pellonpaa P
Human Rights, Registered Land, Limitation
Admissibility
European Convention on Human Rights A1P1 - Limitation Act 1980 - Land Registration Act 1925
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Adams v Bracknell Forest Borough Council; HL 17-Jun-2004 - [2004] UKHL 29; [2005] 1 AC 76; [2004] 3 WLR 89; [2004] 3 All ER 897
 
Buckler v J F Finnegan Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 920
21 Jun 2004
CA

Limitation
The claimant sought damages for personal injuries after ingesting asbestos while employed as a joiner by the defendant. The defendant appealed an order allowing the claim to go ahead despite being out of time.
Limitation Act 1980 33
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Bridgestart Properties Ltd v London Underground Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 793
24 Jun 2004
CA

Land, Damages, Limitation
Defence of limitation in claim for injurious affection after compulsory purchase.
[ Bailii ]
 
Heath Lambert Limited v Sociedad De Corretaje De Seguros, Banesco Seguros Ca [2004] EWCA Civ 792; Times, 02 July 2004
25 Jun 2004
CA
Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Wall Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, Mr
Jurisdiction, Limitation, Insurance
Out of various claims under insurances, one claim, for the payment of a premium on a policy of reinsurance remained. It provided that it was payable 90 days after the contract and in cash. Held: The words indicated that the obligation to pay began not with the contract but after the expiry of the 90 day period. Accordingly, the limitation period ran from that time, and the claim remained live.
Marine Insurance Act 1906 53(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Horton v Sadler and Another [2004] EWCA Civ 936
28 Jun 2004
CA

Limitation

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Generay Ltd v Containerised Storage Company Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 896
30 Jun 2004
CA

Limitation, Land
adverse possession
[ Bailii ]
 
Allendale Ltd v Moualem [2004] EWCA Civ 915
6 Jul 2004
CA
Waller, Buxton LJJ
Contract, Limitation
A promissory note executed on 30 June 1988, payable on demand. The promissory note was executed as a deed and therefore was a speciality falling under section 8 of the Limitation Act 1980, with a limitation period of 12 years. No demand was made for payment under the note within the period of 12 years. It is, and has been recognised for nearly 200 years as the law, that a promissory note payable on demand is enforceable from the date of its execution, and not from the date of any demand.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Ross v Mcgrath [2004] EWCA Civ 1054
14 Jul 2004
CA

Contract, Limitation

[ Bailii ]
 
Morgan Est (Scotland) Ltd v Hanson Concrete Products Ltd [2004] EWHC 1778 (TCC)
22 Jul 2004
TCC

Contract, Limitation

Limitation Act 1980 35
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Nigel Charles Bennett v The Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland [2004] EWCA Civ 988; Times, 04 August 2004
23 Jul 2004
CA
Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Scott Baker
Banking, Limitation
The bank had obtained judgment against the defendant, but had failed to act upon it, and the judgment became unenforceable. It then began later proceedings on the original debt (still within the applicable limitation period). The defendant said this was an abuse of process. Held: The decision in Ridgeway after close of oral argument on the original trial did not affect the question on whether new proceedings amounted to an abuse of process. It was not an abuse to commence proceedings based upon an earlier judgment. Though the second set of proceedings might be unnecessary, they were not an abuse.
Limitation Act 1980 24
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bowden v Sister Bernard Mary Murray and others [2004] ScotCS 194; 2004 SLT 967
30 Jul 2004
OHCS
Lord Johnston
Personal Injury, Limitation

Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 17
1 Citers


 
Wilkinson and Another v West Bromwich Building Society [2004] EWCA Civ 1063; Times, 05 October 2004
30 Jul 2004
CA
Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Jonathan Parker And Lord Justice Dyson
Limitation
The Society had repossessed and sold the mortgagors' house in 1990. It knew then that there was a shortfall, but took no further recovery proceedings until 2002. What was the date from which the relevant limitation period began to run? Though the deed provided for payment of monthly instalments, it did not include an express covenant by the mortgagors to repay the whole of the balance of the advance on a specified date or in a specified event, such as default in the payment of the instalments. Held: The omission af the clause gave rise to questions about how personal repayment obligations, which were not expressed, should be implied, either by way of covenant or contract, and the construction and application of ss5, 8 and 20 of the 1980 Act. Before the action, more than 12 years had elapsed from the accrual of the right of the Society to receive the balance of the mortgage debt secured by the legal charge. The claim for the shortfall was statute barred and the appeal allowed.
Limitation Act 1980
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
David Lannigan v Glasgow City Council
12 Aug 2004
OHCS
R.F.Macdonald, Q.C.
Scotland, Negligence, Education, Limitation
The pursuer said the teachers employed by the defendant had failed to identify that was dyslexic, leading him to suffer damage. The defenders said the claim was time barred, which the pursuer admitted, but then said that the claim ought to go ahead under the court's equitable discretion. Held: After reviewing the authorities, the onus was on the pursuer to satisfy the court that it is equitable to allow him to bring the action notwithstanding that it is time-barred. 'This was a case where the responsibility for the action not having been raised in time rests entirely with the pursuer as responsible for the first agents, that he has a remedy against them if he is not allowed to bring this action out of time and that, if he were allowed to bring the action out of time, the defenders would be prejudiced by losing their statutory defence and having to prepare for and contest a lengthy proof, the expenses of which they may not recover even if successful.' The application was denied.
Limitation Act 1980 19A
1 Cites

[ ScotC ]

 
 Sati Bissessar (in substitution for Ramsaran Bissessar, deceased) (Legal personal representative of the Estate of Bissessar) v Ganase Lall (Administrator ad litem for the estate of Kissoon Lall); PC 7-Oct-2004 - [2004] UKPC 48
 
Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others (No 3) Times, 27 October 2004
7 Oct 2004
CA
Pill LJ, Jonathan Parker LJ and Laddie J
Employment, Limitation
The claimants had had their employments transferred to another body under TUPE. They complained that their pension rights had been discriminatory. The employer appealed a finding that their claim had not been out of time. Held: The effect of the Regulations was to transfer all employment rights unchanged save only the pension obligations. The pension rights were left were excepted by Reg 7 from the statutory fiction that the new employer had always been the employer. From the date of the transfer no new rights could be acquired as against the former employer, but any possible cause of action in respect of the untransferred pension rights remained. Accordingly the time for the running of any claim was from the date of the transfer. The action had not been begun within six months of that date and was out of time.
Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (1981 No 1794) - Equal Pay Act 1970
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Dwr Cymru (Welsh Water) v Carmarthenshire County Council [2004] EWHC 2991 (TCC)
22 Oct 2004
TCC

Limitation

[ Bailii ]
 
Topplan Estates Ltd v David Townley [2004] EWCA Civ 1369; Times, 15 November 2004
27 Oct 2004
CA
Mr Justice Hooper Lord Justice Pill Lord Justice Parker
Registered Land, Limitation
The registered proprietor of land appealed a finding that the defendant had established adverse possession of their land. The claimant had occupied it as part of his farm. Originally there had been a grazing tenancy. The tenancy was terminated, and the land sold, but he did not vacate the land. The new owner granted a further annual licence to the claimant's father, but not after his death in 1982. The claimant continued his occupation, taking off grass crops and grazing the land. The land was sold again, but the purchaser inspected the land in December when the cows had been taken off the land. A part of the land had been used whilst a road was widened, and the claimant had not objected. The appellant said this use was not continuous and apparent. Held: There was no obligation on a claimant to notify the paper owner of his presence: "there can be no obligation in law on a squatter to draw the true owner's attention to the fact that time is running against him." ". . . the epithet 'adverse' in the expression 'adverse possession' in paragraph 8 of Part I of Schedule 1 to the Limitation Act 1980 refers not to the quality of the possession but to the capacity of the party claiming possessory title (“the squatter”) as being a person 'in whose favour the period of limitation can run'. . . In particular, it does not connote any element of aggression, hostility or subterfuge. " and "the word 'possession' in the expression 'adverse possession' means no more than 'ordinary possession of the land' (per Lord Browne-Wilkinson at para 36: see para 39 above). However, in order to establish possession in this context, the squatter must prove (a) sufficient objective acts to constitute physical possession (“factual possession”) coupled with (b) an intention to possess (animus possidendi). “Occupation of the land alone is not enough, nor is an intention to occupy which is not put into effect by action." and "an intention to possess must be distinguished from an intention to own: it is only the former which is relevant in the context of adverse possession" and "a squatter will establish factual possession if he can show that he used the land in the way one would expect him to use it if he were the true owner and in such a way that the owner is excluded " and "Just as the issue as to factual possession depends crucially on the facts of the particular case, so also, in my judgment, must the issue as to the existence of the requisite intention to possess. In particular, whether the existence of factual possession is sufficient in itself to establish the existence of the requisite intention to possess, or whether some further evidence of intention is required, must depend on the particular facts of the case. "
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Kesslar v Moore and Tibbits [2004] EWCA Civ 1551
3 Nov 2004
CA

Civil Procedure Rules, Limitation
Addition of new party after expiry of limitation period.
Civil Procedure Rules
[ Bailii ]
 
M. Holleran Ltd v Severn Trent Water Ltd [2004] EWHC 2508 (Comm)
4 Nov 2004
ComC

Utilities, Limitation

Utilities Contracts Regulations 1996 32(4)
[ Bailii ]

 
 Thomas Cook (New Zealand) Limited v Inland Revenue; PC 10-Nov-2004 - [2004] UKPC 53
 
Gravgaard v Aldridge and Brownlee (A Firm) [2004] EWCA Civ 1529; Times, 02 December 2004
9 Dec 2004
CA
May LJ, Arden LJ
Professional Negligence, Limitation
After the court had sent its draft judgment to the parties, counsel on each side had written to the court making fresh submissions. Held: Contentious matters should only be allowed to be re-opened in very limited circumstances once a draft judgment has been issued. In this case, the submissions would not make an alteration to the result of the appeal, though minor textual alterations would be imported.
Limitation Act 1980 14A
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
The Law Society v Sephton and Co and others [2004] EWCA Civ 1627; Times, 11 January 2005; [2005] QB 1013
13 Dec 2004
CA
Lord Justice Carnwath, Lord Justice Neuberger and Lord Justice Maurice Kay
Professional Negligence, Limitation
The Society appealed dismissal for limitation of its claim against the defendant firm of accountants arising from alleged fraud in approval of a solicitor's accounts. Held: The liability did not arise until the Society decided to make compensation to those who had been affected by the solicitor's default. The claims in negligence were not time barred, but those in fraud were. (Neuberger LJ dissenting)
Solicitors Act 1974 - Limitation Act 1980 2
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
C v Middlesbrough Council [2004] EWCA Civ 1746
21 Dec 2004
CA
Lord Justice Chadwick Lord Justice Latham Sir Swinton Thomas
Personal Injury, Limitation
Damages were sought following sex abuse whilst in care.
1 Citers

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