Click the case name for better results:

Regina v Her Majesty’s Coroner at Hammersmith ex parte Peach: CA 1980

A coroner was obliged to sit with a jury under the section 13(2) of the 1926 Act where the deceased, who was watching a demonstration, was struck a violent blow on the back of his head from which he died.Bridge LJ said: ‘The key to the nature of that limitation is to be found, I … Continue reading Regina v Her Majesty’s Coroner at Hammersmith ex parte Peach: CA 1980

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

Welsh Development Agency v Redpath Dorman Long Ltd: CA 4 Apr 1994

A new claim was not deemed to have been made until the pleading was actually amended for limitation purposes, and should not be allowed after the limitation period had expired. The date of the application for leave to amend was not at issue. The court will normally require the claimant to bring fresh proceedings, in … Continue reading Welsh Development Agency v Redpath Dorman Long Ltd: CA 4 Apr 1994

O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur Sa: CA 9 Oct 2007

The claimant had made a mistake in naming the defendant company, but had intended the company which it now requested the court to substitute as defendant. The limitation period had expired. Held: The substitution was necessary to decide the issue raised by the action. The defendant’s appeal failed. Citations: [2007] EWCA Civ 966, Times 19-Nov-2007, … Continue reading O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur Sa: CA 9 Oct 2007

O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd: QBD 20 Oct 2006

The claimant sought damages under the 1967 Act asserting injury from a drug sold by the defendant. Proceedings had been mistakenly commenced against Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd within the limitation period, but outside the limitation period, it was sought to substitute the actual manufacturer Aventis Pasteur SA. Held: The substitution should be made. The sole … Continue reading O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd: QBD 20 Oct 2006

Morgan EST (Scotland) Ltd v Hanson Concrete Products Ltd: TCC 22 Jul 2004

Citations: [2004] EWHC 1778 (TCC) Links: Bailii Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 35 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Appealed to – Morgan Est (Scotland) Ltd v Hanson Concrete Products Ltd CA 17-Feb-2005 The defendant appealed an order adding two new claimants. Held: Cases decided under the old RSC were not apposite for matters covered by the … Continue reading Morgan EST (Scotland) Ltd v Hanson Concrete Products Ltd: TCC 22 Jul 2004

Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association Ltd v Trollope and Colls Ltd: CA 1986

The employers sued the builders and architects alleging defects in the air conditioning system. Later, cracking and displacement of the walls was discovered, caused allegedly by not having sulphate resisting cement, and defects in the wall ties. Allegations were made against the contractors and the architects and also structural engineers. The question then arose whether … Continue reading Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association Ltd v Trollope and Colls Ltd: CA 1986

Savings and Investment Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) v Fincken: ChD 2 Mar 2001

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 … Continue reading Savings and Investment Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) v Fincken: ChD 2 Mar 2001

Payabi and Another v Armstel Shipping Corporation and Another: QBD 1 Apr 1992

A party had been wrongly added in breach of limitation under Hague Convention. There should have been no relation back. Hobhouse J considered the effect of the 1980 Act: ‘But it is clear that Ord. 20, r. 5 must now be read with the [1980] Act and is implicitly (but inelegantly) giving effect to the … Continue reading Payabi and Another v Armstel Shipping Corporation and Another: QBD 1 Apr 1992

Lloyd’s Bank Plc v Rogers and Another: QBD 11 Apr 1996

Claim may be added outside limitation period where based on same facts. Citations: Times 11-Apr-1996 Statutes: Limitation Act 1980 35 Citing: Appealed to – Lloyds Bank Plc v Rogers and Another CA 20-Dec-1996 An out of time claim for defamation was allowed after late disclosures by the defendant bank in the case. . . Cited … Continue reading Lloyd’s Bank Plc v Rogers and Another: QBD 11 Apr 1996

Mercer Ltd and Another v Ballinger and Another: CA 17 Jul 2014

The court was asked as to the circumstances in which the court could allow an amendment of pleadings so as to allow an additional claim where the action would otherwise be outside the limitation period. Dyson L MR, Tomlinson, Briggs LJJ [2014] EWCA Civ 996, [2014] WLR(D) 335 Bailii, WLRD Limitation Act 1980 35 England … Continue reading Mercer Ltd and Another v Ballinger and Another: CA 17 Jul 2014

Al-Rawas v Hassan Khan and Co (A Firm) and Another: CA 1 Feb 2017

Counterclaim not exempt from limitation by right The claimant firms of solicitors sought to recover their fees from their former clients. In answer the defendants sought to say that they should be allowed to counterclaim in negligence saying that as a counterclaim, section 35(3) of the 1980 Act operated to allow the counterclaim as of … Continue reading Al-Rawas v Hassan Khan and Co (A Firm) and Another: CA 1 Feb 2017

Roberts v Gill and Co Solicitors and Others: SC 19 May 2010

The claimant beneficiary in the estate sought damages against solicitors who had acted for the claimant’s brother, the administrator, saying they had allowed him to take control of the assets in the estate. The will provided that property was to be transferred only if the claimant’s brother paid all the Inheritance Tax. It was transferred … Continue reading Roberts v Gill and Co Solicitors and Others: SC 19 May 2010

Butters and Another v Hayes: CA 25 Feb 2021

‘Does the non-payment of a court fee mean that time continues to run for limitation purposes in respect of a new claim within existing proceedings? In my view it does not. If a new claim which is not otherwise abusive is made by amendment within the . .

Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council: SC 18 Oct 2017

The claimant had been abused as a child by foster parents with whom she had been placed by the respondent authority. The court was now asked, the Council not having been negligent, were they in any event liable having a non-delegable duty of care with accompanying vicarious liability? Held: The appeal succeeded (Lord Hughes dissenting). … Continue reading Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council: SC 18 Oct 2017

Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd and Another v Klipriver Shipping Ltd and Another: CA 3 Apr 2003

The carrier had loaded the cargo on the ship’s deck, despite a clause requiring it to be stowed in a hold. The charterparty sought to use the breach to remove the carrier’s limit of liability. The older form of Hague rules applied. Held: It was not yet decided that the wharehouse and deviation case law … Continue reading Daewoo Heavy Industries Ltd and Another v Klipriver Shipping Ltd and Another: CA 3 Apr 2003

AB and others v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust: QBD 26 Mar 2004

Representative claims were made against the respondents, hospitals, pathologists etc with regard to the removal of organs from deceased children without the informed consent of the parents. They claimed under the tort of wrongful interference. Held: Organ removal when a post mortem had been ordered by the coroner was not tortious. In English law there … Continue reading AB and others v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust: QBD 26 Mar 2004

Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd v Fielding and Another: ChD 5 Sep 2014

The company sought to recover from the defendants, two former directors. Held: The claim was statute barred.Hodge QC dealt with the claimant’s reliance on section 32: ‘That leaves the claimant’s reliance upon section 32. There the difficulties that the claimant faces are that there are no facts sufficiently asserted to give rise, in my judgment, … Continue reading Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd v Fielding and Another: ChD 5 Sep 2014

Haward and others v Fawcetts: HL 1 Mar 2006

The claimant sought damages from his accountants, claiming negligence. The accountants pleaded limitation. They had advised him in connection with an investment in a company which investment went wrong. Held: It was argued that the limitation period was to be extended until three years after the discovery by the claimant of why it was that … Continue reading Haward and others v Fawcetts: HL 1 Mar 2006

Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and Another v Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd: ChD 16 Feb 2006

The patent application had been presented to the European Patent Office and granted only after 13 years. The claimant now appealed refusal to allow amendment of its claim to allow a claim in its sole name. The defendant argued that it was out of time. Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘ the long-standing rule of practice … Continue reading Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and Another v Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd: ChD 16 Feb 2006

Aer Lingus v Gildacroft Ltd and Another: CA 17 Jan 2006

The claimant had been found liable to pay damages for personal injury, and now sought contribution from the defendants. The defendants said that they were out of time since the contribution action had been commenced more than 2 years after the judgment. Held: The appeal succeeded. The judgment had been for damages to be assessed. … Continue reading Aer Lingus v Gildacroft Ltd and Another: CA 17 Jan 2006

Fenech v East London and City Health Authority: CA 2000

The court was asked how to set the time at which the claimant became fixed with knowledge of her injury. They ‘found it unnecessary to attempt any final reconciliation, because ‘on any sort of objective approach’ the claimant should have made inquiries long before she did. ‘ Judges: Simon Brown LJ, Robert Walker LJ and … Continue reading Fenech v East London and City Health Authority: CA 2000

Smith v Henniker-Major and Co: CA 22 Jul 2002

The claimant appealed the strike-out of his claim for professional negligence against the respondent solicitors. He claimed that the solicitors had acted in breach of their duty, and he then called a company meeting. Only he attended. He mistakenly believed that he had the power to assign to himself from the company the right of … Continue reading Smith v Henniker-Major and Co: CA 22 Jul 2002

Horne-Roberts (a Child) v Smithkline Beecham plc and Another: CA 18 Dec 2001

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 … Continue reading Horne-Roberts (a Child) v Smithkline Beecham plc and Another: CA 18 Dec 2001

London Borough of Hillingdon v ARC Limited: CA 7 Apr 1998

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 … Continue reading London Borough of Hillingdon v ARC Limited: CA 7 Apr 1998

Spargo v North Essex District Health Authority: CA 13 Mar 1997

The test of ‘When a plaintiff became aware of the cause of an injury’ is a subjective test of what passed through plaintiff’s mind. ‘(1) the knowledge required to satisfy s14(1)(b) is a broad knowledge of the essence of the causally relevant act or omission to which the injury is attributable; (2) ‘attributable’ in this … Continue reading Spargo v North Essex District Health Authority: CA 13 Mar 1997

Test 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 subsidiaries, breach of EU Treaty guarantees of freedom of establishment and of movement of capital. The court was now asked … Continue reading Test Claimants In The Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Inland Revenue: SC 23 May 2012

Cave v Robinson Jarvis and Rolf: CA 20 Feb 2001

The court was asked as to the meaning of the word ‘deliberate’ as it appeared in section 32(2) of the 1980 Act. Judges: Potter, Sedley, Jonathan Parker LJ Citations: [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 … Continue reading Cave v Robinson Jarvis and Rolf: CA 20 Feb 2001

J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Another v Caroline Graham and Another: CA 6 Feb 2001

Where a tenant under a grazing license had stayed over after the end of the tenancy, and had been refused a renewed licence, and had continued to graze the land for over twelve years, the mere overstaying was not enough to evidence an animus possidendi, an intention to assert an interest contrary to that of … Continue reading J A Pye (Oxford) Ltd and Another v Caroline Graham and Another: CA 6 Feb 2001

Crosse and Crosse (A Firm) v Lloyds Bank Plc: CA 16 Mar 2001

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. Judges: Potter LJ, Sedley … Continue reading Crosse and Crosse (A Firm) v Lloyds Bank Plc: CA 16 Mar 2001

Westminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc: HL 31 Oct 1984

The House was asked whether the 1971 Act permitted the relevant authorities, by resort to their development plans, to support the retention of traditional industries or was the ambit of the Act such as to permit only ‘land use’ aims to be pursued? The court considered also the relevance of personal considerations in planning matters. … Continue reading Westminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc: HL 31 Oct 1984

HF Pension Trustees Ltd v Ellison and Others: ChD 24 Feb 1999

In an allegation of professional negligence which had lead to a transfer of funds, time ran for limitation purposes from the time of the transfer, and not from the point later when it became apparent that the legal advice may have been negligent. A solicitor had advised that a transfer of pension funds was lawful, … Continue reading HF Pension Trustees Ltd v Ellison and Others: ChD 24 Feb 1999

Amantilla Ltd v Telefusion plc: 1987

The case concerned a quantum meruit claim under a building contract. Even though the basis of the claim lies in statute, nonetheless an agreement must be treated as an ‘acknowledgment’ of a ‘liquidated pecuniary claim’ for the purpose of the section, and limitation ran from the date of that agreement. Citations: [1987] 9 ConLR 139 … Continue reading Amantilla Ltd v Telefusion plc: 1987

Birmingham Midshires Building Society v Infields (A Firm): TCC 20 May 1999

The defendant solicitors had acted for the lenders and borrower in a mortgage transaction. The claimant sought repayment of the entire loan, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, in having preferred the interests of one client over those of another. The betrayal of trust inherent in a breach of duty must be a deliberate act. They … Continue reading Birmingham Midshires Building Society v Infields (A Firm): TCC 20 May 1999

Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel: CA 3 Feb 2005

Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US authorities. The claimant had asserted that no more … Continue reading Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel: CA 3 Feb 2005

Galilee v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis: EAT 22 Nov 2017

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Case management PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Amendment PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Time limits Neither the procedural common law doctrine of ‘relation back’ (now defunct – see Beecham Group plc v Norton Healthcare Ltd [1997] FSR 81, Liff v Peasley [1980] 1 WLR 781 and Ketteman v Hansel Properties Ltd [1987] … Continue reading Galilee v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis: EAT 22 Nov 2017

Hedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd: HL 28 May 1963

Banker’s Liability for Negligent Reference The appellants were advertising agents. They were liable themselves for advertising space taken for a client, and had sought a financial reference from the defendant bankers to the client. The reference was negligent, but the bankers denied any assumption of a duty of care to a third party when purely … Continue reading Hedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd: HL 28 May 1963

JD, MAK and RK, RK and Another v East Berkshire Community Health, Dewsbury Health Care NHS Trust and Kirklees Metropolitan Council, Oldham NHS Trust and Dr Blumenthal: CA 31 Jul 2003

Damages were sought by parents for psychological harm against health authorities for the wrongful diagnosis of differing forms of child abuse. They appealed dismissal of their awards on the grounds that it was not ‘fair just and reasonable’ to impose such a duty. The appellants sought to distinguish X v Bedfordshire in different ways. Held: … Continue reading JD, MAK and RK, RK and Another v East Berkshire Community Health, Dewsbury Health Care NHS Trust and Kirklees Metropolitan Council, Oldham NHS Trust and Dr Blumenthal: CA 31 Jul 2003

Donoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson: HL 26 May 1932

Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a friend, … Continue reading Donoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson: HL 26 May 1932

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Amanullah Khan and The Wellcome Trust: ChD 13 Jun 2001

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. … Continue reading The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Amanullah Khan and The Wellcome Trust: ChD 13 Jun 2001

William Hill Organization Ltd v Crossrail Limited: UTLC 17 Jun 2016

UTLC COMPENSATION – Procedure – substitution of Acquiring Authority as respondent to reference after expiry of limitation period – whether essential to validity of reference – jurisdiction to make order – applicable principles – ss.9 and 35, Limitation Act 1980 – s.25 Tribunal, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 – rule 9(1), Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) … Continue reading William Hill Organization Ltd v Crossrail Limited: UTLC 17 Jun 2016

Arcadia Group Brands Ltd and Others v Visa Inc and Others: CA 5 Aug 2015

Appeal by the claimants from the order of Simon J by which he ordered on summary judgment applications by the defendants that (1) the claimants are not entitled to rely on section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980; and the claims are time barred pursuant to sections 2 and 9 of the 1980 Act insofar … Continue reading Arcadia Group Brands Ltd and Others v Visa Inc and Others: CA 5 Aug 2015

Austin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: HL 28 Jan 2009

Movement retsriction was not Liberty Deprivation The claimants had been present during a demonstration policed by the respondent. They appealed against dismissal of their claims for false imprisonment having been prevented from leaving Oxford Circus for over seven hours. The claimants appealed against rejection of their claims on human rights law. Held: The appeal failed. … Continue reading Austin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: HL 28 Jan 2009

Bradford and Bingley Plc v Rashid: HL 12 Jul 2006

Disapplication of Without Prejudice Rules The House was asked whether a letter sent during without prejudice negotiations which acknowledged a debt was admissible to restart the limitation period. An advice centre, acting for the borrower had written, in answer to a claim by the lender for the sum still due after the sale of the … Continue reading Bradford and Bingley Plc v Rashid: HL 12 Jul 2006

Ofulue and Another v Bossert: HL 11 Mar 2009

The parties disputed ownership of land, one claiming adverse possession. In the course of negotations, the possessor made a without prejudice offer to purchase the paper owner’s title. The paper owner claimed that this was an acknowledgement under section 29. Held: The letter should not be admitted. Any admission in the first letter could not … Continue reading Ofulue and Another v Bossert: HL 11 Mar 2009

Collins v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and Others: CA 23 May 2014

The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for personal injury which had been rejected on basis that it was out of time. He had contracted cancer in 2002, but had recovered. He later came to attribute this to exposure to asbestos at work in the docks up to 1967. He made his claim in … Continue reading Collins v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and Others: CA 23 May 2014

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Puttick: CA 1981

The applicant, then Astrid Proll, fled bail in Germany when awaiting trial on terrorist charges, entered England and under a false name, and married Mr Puttick. She resisted extradition saying that under the 1948 Act she was now a British National. She appealed against a decision that she could not rely upon her fraudulent behaviour. … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Puttick: CA 1981

Cattley and Another v Pollard and Another: ChD 7 Dec 2006

The first defendant solicitor misappropriated money from an estate he was administering. The beneficiaries later commenced proceedings against his wife, alleging knowing assistance. She said that that claim was out of time. The claimant responded said that any limitation period was disapplied as ‘any fraud or fraudulent breach of trust to which the trustee was … Continue reading Cattley and Another v Pollard and Another: ChD 7 Dec 2006

Young v Downey: QBD 18 Dec 2019

Responsibility for IRA bombing fixed The claimant sought a finding that the defendant had been responsible for a IRA bombing in 1982 which killed her father and three other soldiers and injured 31 others. He had been acquitted at a criminal trial. Held: The limitation period was extended: ‘As was said in Carroll, the burden … Continue reading Young v Downey: QBD 18 Dec 2019

A v Hoare; H v Suffolk County Council, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening; X and Y v London Borough of Wandsworth: CA 12 Apr 2006

Each claimant sought damages for a criminal assault for which the defendant was said to be responsible. Each claim was to be out of the six year limitation period. In the first claim, the proposed defendant had since won a substantial sum from the National Lottery. They complained that the Limitation Act gave the court … Continue reading A v Hoare; H v Suffolk County Council, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening; X and Y v London Borough of Wandsworth: CA 12 Apr 2006

Marc Rich and Co Ag and Others v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd and Others: HL 6 Jul 1995

A surveyor acting on behalf of the classification society had recommended that after repairs specified by him had been carried out a vessel, the Nicholas H, should be allowed to proceed. It was lost at sea. Held: The marine classification society was not liable in negligence to the owner of a cargo, where it was … Continue reading Marc Rich and Co Ag and Others v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd and Others: HL 6 Jul 1995

Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria: SC 19 Feb 2014

Bank not liable for fraud of customer The appellant sought to make the bank liable for a fraud committed by the Bank’s customer, the appellant saying that the Bank knew or ought to have known of the fraud. The court was asked whether a party liable only as a dishonest assistant was a trustee, and … Continue reading Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria: SC 19 Feb 2014

Green v Eadie and Others: ChD 18 Nov 2011

The claimant as PR of her husband’s estate sought damages for misrepresentation and, against his former solicitiors for negligence in regards to the boundaries of a property he had bought from the first defendants using the second defendants as his solicitors. The first defendant said the claim was time barred. The six year period had … Continue reading Green v Eadie and Others: ChD 18 Nov 2011

Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council: HL 22 May 1996

Simple interest only on rate swap damages The bank had paid money to the local authority under a contract which turned out to be ultra vires and void. The question was whether, in addition to ordering the repayment of the money to the bank on unjust enrichment principles, the court could also award compound interest. … Continue reading Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council: HL 22 May 1996

David T Morrison and Co Ltd (T/A Gael Home Interiors) v ICL Plastics Ltd and Others: SC 30 Jul 2014

The claimant sought damages after an explosion at the defender’s nearby premises damaged its shop. The defender said that the claim was out of time, and now appealed against a decision that time had not begun to run under the 1973 Act. Held: (Lord Hodge and Lord Toulson dissenting) The appeal was allowed. The natural … Continue reading David T Morrison and Co Ltd (T/A Gael Home Interiors) v ICL Plastics Ltd and Others: SC 30 Jul 2014

Loutchansky v The Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (Nos 2 to 5): CA 5 Dec 2001

Two actions for defamation were brought by the claimant against the defendant. The publication reported in detail allegations made against the claimant of criminal activities including money-laundering on a vast scale. They admitted the defamatory nature of the words, but claimed qualified Reynolds privilege. They said that as responsible journalists they had a duty to … Continue reading Loutchansky v The Times Newspapers Ltd and Others (Nos 2 to 5): CA 5 Dec 2001

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

Where an action had been begun on basis of allegations of negligence and breach of trust, new allegations of fraud where quite separate new causes of claim, and went beyond amendments and were disallowed outside the relevant limitation period. Sections 23 and 36 and the absence of express statutory mention in the 1980 Act of … Continue reading 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

Cave v Robinson Jarvis and Rolf (a Firm): HL 25 Apr 2002

An action for negligence against a solicitor was defended by saying that the claim was out of time. The claimant responded that the solicitor had not told him of the circumstances which would lead to the claim, and that deliberate concealment should extend the limitation period. Held: Brocklesby was wrongly decided. Section 32 should deprive … Continue reading Cave v Robinson Jarvis and Rolf (a Firm): HL 25 Apr 2002

Gray v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another; Coogan v Same: ChD 25 Feb 2011

The claimants said that agents of the defendant had unlawfully accessed their mobile phone systems. The court was now asked whether the agent (M) could rely on the privilege against self incrimination, and otherwise as to the progress of the case. The claimant asserted that their claim was an intellectual property claim, allowing section 72 … Continue reading Gray v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another; Coogan v Same: ChD 25 Feb 2011

Dowson and Others v Northumbria Police: QBD 30 Apr 2009

Nine police officers claimed damages for alleged harassment under the 1997 Act by a senior officer in having bullied them and ordered them to carry out unlawful procedures. Amendments were sought which were alleged to be out of time and to have arisen from different facts. Held: Amendments were allowed where they arose from the … Continue reading Dowson and Others v Northumbria Police: QBD 30 Apr 2009

Re A Debtor: 1977

Corporate insolvency proceedings based on a statutory demand for monies due under a previous judgment are an ‘action on a judgment’ within s 24 rather than a method of enforcing or executing the judgment. They are barred by s 24 if brought more than . .

Collins v Brebner: CA 19 Jun 1997

The defendant solicitor appealed refusal of an order to strike out the claim. The claimant alleged breach of trust. The claimant asserted a fraudulent witholding of information to suggest that any breach of trust had happened. The defendant said . .

law index

Our law-index is a substantial selection from our database. Cases here are restricted in number by date and lack the additional facilities formerly available within lawindexpro. Please do enjoy this free version of the lawindex. Case law does not ‘belong’ to lawyers. Judgments are made up of words which can be read and understood (if … Continue reading law index