Archive for the 'limitations' Category

Berezovsky v Abramovich – WLR Daily

Berezovsky v Abramovich [2011] EWCA Civ 153; [2011] WLR (D) 59

“A claimant who applied for permission to amend his particulars of claim by reframing the loss allegedly suffered as a result of the commission of a tort was not seeking to make a new claim involving the addition or substitution of a new cause of action within the meaning of section 35 of the Limitation Act 1980.”

WLR Daily, 25th February 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Baxter v Mannion – WLR Daily

Baxter v Mannion [2011] EWCA Civ 120; [2011] WLR (D) 54

“Where a registrar of the Land Registry found that a person who had been registered as the proprietor of land as adverse possessor had not in fact been in adverse possession of the land, he could exercise his power under paragraph 5(a) of Schedule 4 to the Land Registration Act 2002 to alter the register for the purpose of correcting a mistake, so as to restore the original proprietor.”

WLR Daily, 23rd February 2011

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Stonham v Ramrattan and another – WLR Daily

“Section 283A of the Insolvency Act 1986, which gave a trustee in bankruptcy three years from the date of the bankruptcy to decide what to do about any interest in a house inhabited by the bankrupt or their current or former spouse or civil partner, was concerned only with property which actually formed part of the bankrupt’s estate at the time at the commencement of the bankruptcy. It did not apply to property currently vested in a third party but in respect of which a claim to set aside a transaction at an undervalue might be made under section 339 of the 1986 Act, in respect of which the limitation period remained the 12 years provided for under section 8 of the Limitation Act 1980.”
WLR Daily, 17th February 2011
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Aktas v Adepta; Dixie v British Polythene Industries plc – WLR Daily

Aktas v Adepta; Dixie v British Polythene Industries plc [2010] EWCA Civ 1170 ; [2010] WLR(D) 269

“Negligent failure to serve a claim form in time for the purposes of CPR rr 7.5/7.6 was not in itself an abuse of process. Nevertheless, failure to serve on time had always been dealt with strictly. This was because in England, unlike most civil law jurisdictions, proceedings were commenced when issued and not when served. But it was not until service that the defendant was given proper notice of the proceedings. The additional time between issue and service was thus, in a way, an extension of the limitation period. A claimant could issue proceedings on the last day of the limitation period and still enjoy a further four-month period before service. The strictness with which the time for service was supervised thus had valid public interest underpinnings which were quite separate from the doctrine of abuse of process.”

WLR Daily, 26th October 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Bolsover District Council and another v Ashfield Nominees Ltd and others – WLR Daily

Bolsover District Council and another v Ashfield Nominees Ltd and others [2010] EWCA Civ 1129; [2010] WLR (D) 263

“A local authority which had obtained a liability order in respect of unpaid council tax and which wished to enforce it by way of insolvency proceedings was not obliged to do so within six years of granting of the order, since the presentation of winding up petitions in respect of sums due under liability orders for unpaid council tax were not within the scope of s 9 of the Limitation Act 1980.”

WLR Daily, 22nd October 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Lockheed Martin Corpn v Willis Group Ltd – WLR Daily

Lockheed Martin Corpn v Willis Group Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 927; [2010] WLR (D) 225

“Where a party was to be substituted on the grounds of mistake under CPR r 19.5 there was no further formal jurisdictional requirement that the mistake was not misleading to the other party or did not cause reasonable doubt as to the identity of the party intended to be sued.”

WLR Daily, 5th August 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd – WLR Daily

O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd [2010] UKSC 23; [2010] WLR (D) 137

 “In a claim under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 based on the rights conferred under Council Directive 85/374/EEC concerning liability for defective products, which by art 11 required proceedings to be brought against the producer within ten years of the product being put into circulation, domestic law could not allow the producer to be substituted as the defendant outside that period in place of a wholly-owned subsidiary (who was the supplier but had been erroneously thought to be the producer) unless the parent company had actually determined when the supplier put the product in circulation.”

WLR Daily, 27th May 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Roberts v Gill & Co – WLR Daily

Roberts v Gill & Co [2010] UKSC 22; [2010] WLR (D) 130

“A beneficiary under a will who had commenced proceedings against solicitors he alleged had acted negligently in connection with the estate could not, after the relevant limitation period had expired, amend his claim so as to also claim on behalf of the estate by way of a derivative action.”

WLR Daily, 21st May 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Bradford & Bingley plc v Ashcroft – WLR Daily

Bradford & Bingley plc v Ashcroft [2010] EWCA Civ 223; [2010] WLR (D) 74

 “There was no need to re-analyse a part-payment of a mortgage debt or to put a gloss on it in terms of acknowledgment for the purposes of calculating whether or not the limitation period had expired because s 29(5) of the Limitation Act 1980 made provision for a freestanding mechanism for the computation of time.”

WLR Daily, 11th March 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Regina (Smith) v Land Registry – WLR Daily

Regina (Smith) v Land Registry [2010] EWCA Civ 200; [2010] WLR (D) 72

“Title to land over which a public highway runs could not be acquired by adverse possession.”

WLR Daily, 11th March 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

National Ability SA v Tinna Oils & Chemicals Ltd – WLR Daily

National Ability SA v Tinna Oils & Chemicals Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1330; [2009] WLR (D) 36

“An application to enforce an arbitration award in the same manner as a judgment under the procedure set out in s 26 of the Arbitration Act 1950 and s 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996 was subject to the same limitation period of six years under s 7 of the Limitation Act 1980 as an ordinary action on the award.”

WLR Daily, 14th December 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Aventis Pasteur SA v OB – WLR Daily

Aventis Pasteur SA v OB (Case C-358/08); [2009] WLR (D) 352

“The Community Directive on liability for defective products normally precluded a producer of a product from being substituted, after the expiry of the 10-year limitation period, for a defendant who had been sued within that period.”

WLR Daily, 3rd December 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Azaz v Denton – WLR Daily

Azaz v Denton [2009] EWHC 1759 (QB); [2009] WLR (D) 256

WLR Daily, 24th July 2009

“The three-year limitation period under s 11 of the Limitation Act 1980 applied to the whole action where a claim for damages for personal injuries was one of a number of claims.”

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Pickthall Ltd v Hill Dickinson LLP and another – WLR Daily

Pickthall Ltd v Hill Dickinson LLP and another [2009] EWCA Civ 543; [2009] WLR (D) 183

“It was an abuse of process for a party to issue proceedings on the day before the limitation period expired in the knowledge that the cause of action was vested not in him but in his trustee in bankruptcy, despite the party’s intention of later seeking an assignment of the cause of action and amending the claim form so that the assignment (which had been obtained after the expiration of the limitation period) could be pleaded.”

WLR Daily, 12th June 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

AB and Others v Ministry of Defence – Times Law Reports

AB and Others v Ministry of Defence

Queen’s Bench Division

“Claims for compensation by former servicemen in relation to exposure to ionising radiation as a result of nuclear tests carried out in the 1950s were not to be struck out either as time-barred or as having no reasonable prospect of success.”

The Times, 10th June 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

AB and others v Ministry of Defence – WLR Daily

AB and others v Ministry of Defence [2009] EWHC 1225 (QB); [2009] WLR (D) 174

“In relation to a group action the issue as to when a claimant had “knowledge” for the purposes of ss 12 and 14 of the Limitation Act 1980 was primarily one of fact The state of the claimant’s belief was to be considered, as also whether he thought it necessary to refer his belief to experts, medical or legal, or others. In relation to words used by a witness when being asked about his state of mind at a particular time in the past, his actions (or inactions) at the time about which he was being asked might require the words used or accepted in evidence to be viewed with circumspection.”

WLR Daily, 8th June 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

In re Overnight Ltd Goldfarb v Higgins and Another – Times Law Reports

In re Overnight Ltd Goldfarb v Higgins and Another

Chancery Division

“The cause of action for fraudulent trading under section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 accrued on the making of the winding-up order.”

The Times, 2nd April 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

In re Overnight Ltd; Goldfarb v Higgins and others – WLR Daily

In re Overnight Ltd; Goldfarb v Higgins and others; [2009] WLR (D) 49

The cause of action for fraudulent trading under s 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 arose on the day the winding up order was made and not when either the petition was presented or the provisional liquidator appointed.”

WLR Daily, 12th February 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Yorkshire Bank Finance Ltd v Mulhall and Another – WLR Daily

Yorkshire Bank Finance Ltd v Mulhall and Another: [2008] EWCA Civ 1156; [2008] WLR (D) 330

No provision in the Limitation Act 1980 prevented the enforcement in 2007 of a charging order over land made in 1990 to secure a judgment debt though no attempt at enforcement had been made in the interim.”

WLR Daily, 24th October 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Spencer v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Moore v Secretary of State for Transport and Another – Times Law Reports

Spencer v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Moore v Secretary of State for Transport and Another

Court of Appeal

“A cause of action for damages against the government for failure to implement Community law resulting in failure to provide a remedy in a personal injury case accrued as soon as some measurable damage had been suffered The Court of Appeal so stated when dismissing the appeals of: (i) Derek Keith Spencer against the dismissal of his claim by Mr Justice Holland ([2007] EWHC 1775 (QB)) and (ii) Kenneth Dudley Moore against the dismissal of his claim by Mr Justice Eady ([2007] EWHC 879 (QB)).”

The Times, 24th July 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

A v Hoare (No 2) – WLR Daily

A v Hoare (No 2) [2008] EWHC 1573 (QB); [2008] WLR (D) 230

“In considering the factors relevant to the exercise of the court’s discretion under s 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to extend the limitation period beyond that specified in s 11 of the Act, the reasons for the delay in issuing proceedings, and its potentially prejudicial effect, mattered more than the length of the delay, and it was reasonable to delay on account of the defendant’s impecuniosity.”

WLR Daily, 9th July 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Spencer v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Moore v Secretary of State for Transport and another – WLR Daily

Spencer v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Moore v Secretary of State for Transport and another [2008] EWCA Civ 750; [2008] WLR (D) 218

“A cause of action for damages against the Government for failure to implement Community law and provide a remedy in a personal injury case accrued as soon as some measurable damage had been suffered.”

WLR Daily, 2nd July 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Giles v Rhind and Another (No 2) – Times Law Reports

Giles v Rhind and Another (No 2)

Court of Appeal

“The court had power to extend the limitation period where a party, allegedly in breach of duty, had entered into a transaction defrauding creditors.”

The Times, 25th March 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Legal Services Commission v Rasool – WLR Daily

Legal Services Commission v Rasool [2008] EWCA Civ 154; WLR (D) 75

For the purposes of limitation and ascertaining the date of accrual of a cause of action permitting the Legal Services Commission to recover costs following revocation of a legal aid certificate, it was not a condition precedent that the quantum of any such costs should first be established before time started to run.”

WLR Daily, 6th March 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd – WLR Daily

O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 939

“A party could be substituted under s 35 of the Limitation Act 1980 where the ten-year limitation period for making a claim for damage caused by a defective product had expired, even where the correct party was known to the claimant before the limitation period expired, if the claimant had made a mistake about the name of the defendant and substitution was necessary for the purpose of determining the original action.”

WLR Daily, 10th October 2007

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Adelson and Another v. Associated Newspapers Ltd. – Times Law Reports

Addition of parties is not same as substitution

Adelson and Another v. Associated Newspapers Ltd.

Court of Appeal

“An order would be made substituting a party to an action after the expiry of the limitation period on the ground that there had been a mistake in relation to the name of a party only if the person who had made the mistake was the person responsible for the issue of the claim form and, had the mistake not been made, the new party would have been named in the pleading.”

The Times, 18th July 2007

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

In re Eurocruit Europe Ltd. (in liquidation) – Times Law Reports

Times ran out for liquidator 

In re Eurocruit Europe Ltd. (in liquidation) 

Chancery Division

“The limitation period of a claim brought by a liquidator under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 was the same as that applicable to the underlying claim.”

The Times, 16th July 2007

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Adelson and another v Associated Newspapers Ltd – WLR Daily

Adelson and another v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2007] EWCA (Civ) 701 

A court would only grant an order substituting a party to an action after the expiry of the limitation period, pursuant to CPR r 19.5, on the ground that there had been a mistake in relation to the name of a party, if it was shown that the person who had made the mistake was the person responsible for the issue of the claim form and that, had the mistake not been made, the new party would have been named in the pleading.”

WLR Daily, 11th July 2007

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

In re Eurocruit Europe Ltd. – WLR Daily

In re Eurocruit Europe Ltd. [2007] EWHC 1433 (Ch) 

“A claim under s 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 did not have a limitation period distinct from the limitation period applicable to the underlying claim.”

WLR Daily, 21st June 2007

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Adelson and Another v Associated Newspapers Ltd. – Times Law Reports

No power to add late libel claim

Adelson and Another v. Associated Newspapers Ltd. 

Queen’s Bench Division

“Where the libel limitation period had expired, there was no jurisdiction to grant an application to amend pleadings by the addition of new claimants.”

The Times, 10th May 2007

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Adelson and another v. Associated Newspapers Ltd. – WLR Daily

Adelson and another v. Associated Newspapers Ltd.

“There was no jurisdiction under s 35 of the Limitation Act 1980 or under CPR r 19.5 to grant an application to amend pleadings by the addition of new claimants in the course of a libel action after the expiry of the limitation period.”

WLR Daily, 1st May 2007

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.


July 2020
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Categories