Limitation

In Nemeti and others v Sabre Insurance Company Ltd [2012] EWHC 3355, the High Court considered an appeal of a master's order that a claimant be permitted to amend his claim to substitute a defendant outside the relevant limitation period.

An Ask the team article about extending time under the Latent Damage Act 1986.

A case considering when the limitiation period in litigation would begin to run where a claimant lacked mental capacity when he reached 18. (Seaton and others v Seddon and others [2012] EWHC 735 (Ch).)

In Inframatrix Investments Ltd v Dean Construction Ltd [2011] EWHC 1947, the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) held that a bespoke limitation clause preventing claims being brought more than one year after practical completion or completion of services was sufficient to strike out the employer's claim under a building contract.

PLC Dispute Resolution has published Allen & Overy's monthly comment for December 2010 on current issues in litigation. Free Access

A legal update on Pegasus Management Holdings SCA and another v Ernst & Young (a firm) and another [2010] EWCA Civ 181, in which the Court of Appeal considered the claimants' appeal against the finding that their claim for negligent tax advice was statute-barred.

An update on National Ability SA v Tinna Oils and Chemicals Limited [2009] EWCA Civ 1330, which considered the limitation period for enforcing an arbitration award under the Arbitration Act 1996. Note: The Supreme Court refused permission to appeal from this decision on 17 June 2010.

An update on an announcement by The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Bridget Prentice) stating that the proposed reforms on limitation will not be taken forward in the Civil Law Reform Bill that is due to be published in December 2009.

An update on Harland & Wolff Pension Trustees Ltd v Aon Consulting Financial Services Ltd [2009] EWHC 1557 (Ch), which considered an application to amend particulars of claim when the limitation period had expired.

An update on Gold Shipping Navigation Co SA v Lulu Maritime Limited [2009] EWHC 1365 (Admiralty), in which the court considered the effect of a standstill agreement.

Publication of Standard document, Standstill agreement: an example and accompanying drafting note.

An announcement by the Office of the Leader of the House of Commons on the draft Civil Law Reform Bill.

The Court of Appeal has dismissed a pensions claim as statute-barred and has narrowed the scope of contingent liability in doing so.

The VAT & Duties Tribunal has held that changes to the calculation of the limitation period for claiming overpaid VAT are compatible with EU principles of equivalence and effectiveness despite there being no transitional measures.

In the case of Barbara Buckley v James Stewart Dalziel and another [2007] EWHC 1025 (QB), the High Court considered the extent to which absolute immunity extended to defamatory statements made in the course of a criminal investigation and the circumstances in which the twelve month limitation period would be disapplied in defamation proceedings. Absolute privilege and immunity from suit extend to defamatory statements made in court proceedings, including witness statements and statements made out of court if they are part of the process of investigating a crime or possible crime in order to allow those involved in the investigation to communicate freely. The court in this case decided that the protection of absolute privilege and immunity from suit should be extended to cover communications by the defendant, Mr Dalziel, to a police officer in a witness statement in circumstances where the defendant was assumed, for present purposes, to have acted maliciously. As regards the limitation issue, the court summarised all the factors which must be applied when deciding whether to disapply the strict provisions of section 4A of the Limitation Act 1980 (concerning libel, slander and malicious falsehood), the ultimate test being whether or not it is "equitable" to allow the action to proceed. In this case, the judge decided not to disapply the twelve month limitation period. There was considerable delay by the claimant in obtaining the alleged defamatory material from the p

The House of Lords has held that the limitation period for recovery of advance corporation tax demanded unlawfully runs from the time at which the unlawfulness of the demand was discovered, and not when the payment was made.

Note: In Poole v HM Treasury [2007] EWCA Civ 1021, the Court of Appeal has upheld the first instance decision (see Legal update, Lloyd's Names' appeal fails). In Poole v HM Treasury [2006] EWHC 2731 (Comm), Lloyd's Names brought claims against the Government for losses said to have been suffered as a result of the failure by the government to implement EC legislation governing the supervision and authorisation of insurance business. The claims were dismissed by Langley J, both because no cause of action existed, and also because in any event the claims advanced were time-barred. Although strictly obiter, the comments on the limitation issues are of particular interest to litigators as they address difficult legal issues which arise relatively frequently in practice. The House of Lords case of Law Society v. Sephton & Co (a firm) & Ors [2006] UKHL 22 on contingent liabilities was distinguished, and the judgment of Langley J also includes some useful discussion of the meaning of "knowledge" for the purposes of section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980.

The Court of Appeal has held that the limitation period within which a defendant may claim a contribution from a third party towards damages payable to a claimant runs from the date on which those damages are assessed.

The Lord Chancellor has announced that the Government accepts in principle the proposals made by the Law Commission in its July, 2001 report on the reform of the law of limitation of actions: Law Commission Report 270: Limitation of Actions. The Government intends to give further consideration to certain aspects of the report with a view to introducing legislation when parliamentary time allows. For a note on the main proposals in the report, see: Law Commission report on reform of limitation periods. The Law Commission consultation paper, the Law Commission report and the draft bill attached to the report are also available.

First Roodhill Leasing Ltd v Gillingham Operating Company Ltd, 5 July, 2001 (High Court). The High Court dismissed an application for leave to add causes of action where those additional causes of action had arisen more than six years before. Whether or not time could be extended under section 32(1)(c) of the Limitation Act 1980 would require a careful examination of the facts. Justice required that the claims should be brought in a fresh action. The case is interesting because the court made obiter comments on what consititutes 'discovery of mistake' for the purposes of section 32(1)(c). Certain knowledge of the mistake is not necessary. It may be sufficient for the claimant to have good reason to believe that a mistake has been made.