High Court dismisses first test case in second wave of Mau Mau claims – Litigation Futures

Posted August 13th, 2018 in colonies, delay, limitations, news, personal injuries, torture by sally

‘The High Court has dismissed the first test case brought as part of a second wave of Mau Mau group litigation, following the British government’s settlement of over 5,000 claims for £19.9m in 2013.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 10th August 2018

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

The Mau Mau litigation: fear is not a personal injury – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted August 8th, 2018 in colonies, Kenya, limitations, news, personal injuries, torture by tracey

‘Kimathi & Ors v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 1305 (QB). Stewart J has recently dismissed the first test case in this group litigation, in which over 40,000 Kenyans bring claims for damages against the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office, alleging abuse during the Kenyan Emergency of the 1950s and early 1960s, in Kimathi & Others v The Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 2066 (QB). Jo Moore discusses this in her blog post of 6 August 2018.

Earlier this year however he considered, as a preliminary matter, whether fear, caused either by the tort of negligence or trespass, amounts to personal injury so that the Court has the discretionary power to exclude the 3-year limitation period which arises under section 11 of the 1980 Act. Stewart J concluded that “despite the comprehensive and innovative submissions of the Claimants” (para 37), which included arguments on human rights grounds, fear did not amount to a personal injury.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 7th August 2018

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Claim against law firm within limitation period despite “unconnected” abuse of process – Litigation Futures

Posted July 12th, 2018 in abuse of process, law firms, limitations, negligence, news by sally

‘A professional negligence claim was brought within the limitation period despite an “unconnected” abuse of process over the court fee paid, the High Court has held.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 11th July 2018

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Court finds abuse of process did not affect limitation period – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted July 10th, 2018 in abuse of process, limitations, news, striking out, time limits by sally

‘The High Court has decided not to strike out a claim where an incorrect fee was paid days before the limitation period ended.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 10th July 2018

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Supreme Court: use of corporate vehicles did not avoid limitation exception – OUT-LAW.com

‘Company directors were said to be responsible for assets despite their use of corporate vehicles, the Supreme Court has ruled (12-page / 157KB PDF). The ruling means that a six year limitation period stopping liquidators taking legal action against the directors does not apply. This case will impact future misfeasance actions. Director and officer indemnity insurers should take note of this decision as it confirms that the English courts are unwilling to accept the six-year limitation defence for actions against directors following the disposal of company assets in breach of fiduciary duty for economic gain.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 23rd March 2018

Source: www.out-law.com

Exclusive: “The impact has been devastating but I have to stand up to discrimination,” says barrister suing BSB – Legal Futures

‘The barrister who won the first stage of her battle with the Bar Standards Board (BSB) at the Supreme Court last week said the impact of almost five years of litigation had been “completely devastating” for her law firm.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 13th December 2017

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Time Limits under the Human Rights Act 1998: what is a “course of conduct”? – Cloisters

‘Anna Beale discusses the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the time limit provisions contained in the Human Rights Act 1998 in O’Connor v Bar Standards Board [2017] UKSC 78.’

Full Story

Cloisters, 7th December 2017

Source: www.cloisters.com

Supreme Court rules on time limitation for claims under the Human Rights Act – UK Human Rights Blog

‘The Supreme Court has ruled that a barrister’s claim against the Bar Standards Board for discrimination should not be time barred under the one year limit prescribed by the Human Rights Act. In her case, the Court said, the time limit for bringing proceedings only started running when she successfully appealed against disciplinary action taken against her. The decision to bring disciplinary proceedings and the subsequent hearings were part of a single process, not a series of disparate acts which set the time limitation period running.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 6th December 2017

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Domestic violence victims will have legal aid limitations eased, say Ministry of Justice – The Independent

Posted December 5th, 2017 in domestic violence, evidence, legal aid, limitations, news, time limits, victims by tracey

‘The Ministry of Justice announced changes to give more support to those taking abusive former partners to court in family proceedings.’

MOJ press release

Full Story

The Independent, 4th December 2017

Source: www.independent.co.uk

Reasonable Belief in Adverse Possession – 14 Years Later – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted November 23rd, 2017 in land registration, limitations, news, trespass by sally

‘The doctrine of adverse possession arises from the Limitation Act 1980. Section 15(1) provides that no action shall be brought by any person to recover any land after the expiration of 12 years from the date on which the right of action accrued. Sections 1-7 provide that at the expiration of the period of 12 years the title of the paper owner is extinguished. The claim of a person to a possessory title was therefore based on the negative effect of the extinguishment of the paper owner’s title, and the basic principle that what is required for a case in trespass is not ownership, but possession or a right to possession.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 9th November 2017

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Reasonable Belief in Adverse Possession – 14 Years Later – Hardwicke Chambers

‘The doctrine of adverse possession arises from the Limitation Act 1980. Section 15(1) provides that no action shall be brought by any person to recover any land after the expiration of 12 years from the date on which the right of action accrued. Sections 1-7 provide that at the expiration of the period of 12 years the title of the paper owner is extinguished. The claim of a person to a possessory title was therefore based on the negative effect of the extinguishment of the paper owner’s title, and the basic principle that what is required for a case in trespass is not ownership, but possession or a right to possession.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 9th November 2017

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Not with a Whisper but a Bang: the new insurance laws in a Professional Indemnity Context – Hailsham Chambers

‘The changes of last August and the impending Enterprise Act 2016 changes for May of next year will transform the way we have to look at insurance contracts generally and, if our insurer clients’ underwriting departments have not substantially rewritten their proposal forms and policy documents, we can anticipate a few years of ongoing law making.’

Full Story

Hailsham Chambers, 3rd November 2017

Source: www.hailshamchambers.com

Know your limitation – New Law Journal

Posted November 22nd, 2017 in damages, limitations, negligence, news, statutory interpretation, taxation, time limits by sally

‘A number of hot topics in the professional negligence arena came before Mrs Justice Moulder in the recent case of Halsall and Others v Champion Consulting Limited and Others [2017] EWHC 1079 (QB), [2017] All ER (D) 44 (Jun). The result ultimately turned on the application of s 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) and the claim, which otherwise would have succeeded, was dismissed as statute barred. But was the decision on limitation correct?’

Full Story

New Law Journal, 27th October 2017

Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk

Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980: Mossa v Wise [2017] EWHC 2608 (QB) – Zenith PI Blog

Posted November 14th, 2017 in doctors, limitations, medical treatment, negligence, news by tracey

‘The High Court upheld a Master’s decision to allow a clinical negligence action to proceed pursuant to section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980.’

Full Story

Zenith PI Blog, 13th November 2017

Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com

Bad advice, limitation and tax avoidance – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted October 23rd, 2017 in limitations, negligence, news, tax avoidance by sally

‘When does the claimant’s cause of action accrue in a professional negligence case? In particular, at what point has the claimant suffered a recoverable loss? This question is of course most relevant when a potential limitation defence arises under section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980, and is an issue that the courts have struggled with for some time. The recent case of Halsall v Champion Consulting Limited [2017] EWHC 1079 (QB) serves as a useful reminder of the difficulties that can arise in this area.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 17th October 2017

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Johnson v MoD and date of knowledge in noise-induced hearing loss limitation trials – Zenith Chambers

Posted October 20th, 2017 in limitations, news, noise, personal injuries by sally

‘The decision of the Court of Appeal in Johnson v Ministry of Defence [2013] P.I.Q.R. P7, [2012] E.W.C.A. Civ 1505 provides a potential “knockout blow” for Defendants in noise-induced hearing loss limitation trials where attributability is disputed by the Claimant.’

Full Story

Zenith Chambers, 13th October 2017

Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk

David Partington discusses: Time Share Mis Selling – An Introduction to Alternative Strategies – Park Square Barristers

Posted October 20th, 2017 in consumer credit, contracts, limitations, misrepresentation, news by sally

‘The standard, if unimaginative, attack on a timeshare contract is an action in breach of contract and claiming or claiming and damages under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967. This is a perfectly logical and valid start, but as I have written before, and will write again, the classic action in misrepresentation is a very cumbersome and formalistic cause of action. It is a construction rooted in Victorian values, and the axiom caveat emptor (buyer beware) is part of its legal DNA. No doubt it worked very well where gentlemen in stove pipe hats were buying and selling new parts for their latest foundry; it also works well when you have purchased a company after a comprehensive due diligence process and there are written representation and accounts to pore over. It is much more difficult to deploy in the modern world where “consumers” (not a concept with which the Victorians would have been comfortable) are being subject to what may loosely but accurately be called “high pressure selling techniques” which employ a mixture of half-truths and psychological exploitation.’

Full Story

Park Square Barristers, 18th October 2017

Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk

Who Knows Where the Time Goes? The Recent Decision on Limitation and Contingent Loss in Osborne v. Follett Stock [2017] EWHC 1811 – 4 New Square

‘On Thursday 13 July 2017, following the trial of a preliminary issue of limitation, HH Judge Paul Matthews handed down judgment in Osborne v. (1) Follett Stock (a firm); (2) Follett Stock LLP.’

Full Story

4 New Square, 19th July 2017

Source: www.4newsquare.com

Five common perils of standstill agreements in professional liability claims – 4 New Square

Posted August 23rd, 2017 in limitations, negligence, news by sally

‘With standstill agreements back in the legal news following judgment being handed down in the Muduroglu matter ([2017] EWHC 29 (Ch)), below I have set out five frequently encountered problems with standstill agreements in professional liability claims.’

Full Story

4 New Square, 21st August 2017

Source: www.4newsquare.com

Personal injury: Untraced drivers and rights – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted July 26th, 2017 in costs, limitations, Motor Insurers’ Bureau, news, personal injuries by sally

‘In Howe v Motor Insurers’ Bureau [2017] EWCA obligation 932, Mr Howe was driving a lorry in France on 30 March 2007 when a wheel detached from a lorry in front of him. The resulting accident left him paraplegic. Neither the other vehicle nor its driver was ever traced. He submitted a claim to the Motor Insurers’ Bureau and its French equivalent, but after a time he was told by the French that his claim was out of time. Consequently, he issued proceedings against the British MIB directly, seeking to enforce his rights under regulation 13 of the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Information Centre and Compensation Body) Regulations 2003 (the regulations). That claim was struck out because it was out of time. The MIB now sought to recover its costs of defending the proceedings.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 24th July 2017

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk