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.


August 2017
M T W T F S S
« May    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Categories