Phillips-Higgins v Harper: QBD 1954

A claim was made to recover monies due under a contract where the plaintiff had failed to realise that the balance was due to her, and by that mistake the action was concealed from her.
Held: Pearson J said: ‘But that is not sufficient. Probably provision (c) applies only where the mistake is an essential ingredient of the cause of action, so that the statement of claim sets out, or should set out, the mistake and its consequences and pray for relief from those consequences. In this case the statement of claim sets out that sums became due and that only a smaller amount of X pounds has been paid, and the prayer is for an account to ascertain the sums still due and for payment of them when so ascertained. This action is not for relief from the consequences of mistake within the meaning of section 26.’
When asking when a cause of action began under the section, the essential question was whether the action was for relief from the consequences of a mistake, an example of which was an action for the recovery of money paid in consequence of a mistake. The section was intended to be a narrow one, because any wider provision would have opened too wide a door of escape from the general principle of limitation.

Judges:

Pearson J

Citations:

[1954] 1 QB 411, [1954] 2 All ER 51

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1939 26

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedKleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council etc HL 29-Jul-1998
Right of Recovery of Money Paid under Mistake
Kleinwort Benson had made payments to a local authority under swap agreements which were thought to be legally enforceable when made. Subsequently, a decision of the House of Lords, (Hazell v. Hammersmith and Fulham) established that such swap . .
CitedTest Claimants In The Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Inland Revenue SC 23-May-2012
The European Court had found the UK to have unlawfully treated differently payment of franked dividends between subsidiaries of UK companies according to whether all the UK subsidiaries were themselves UK based, thus prejudicing European . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.236540