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

Is an RTA Insurer Liable for an Unidentified Defendant? – Park Square Barristers

‘The Court of Appeal has held in Cameron v Hussain and Liverpool Victoria [2017] EWCA Civ 366 that a Claimant can obtain a judgment against a Defendant identified only by description of him as the driver of a vehicle on a particular date. Whilst in almost every other area of law such judgment would be worthless as unenforceable, the Road Traffic Act 1988 provisions impose a contingent liability against the insurer of the vehicle to satisfy such a judgment. At first blush this seems to dismantle the careful limitations placed on the European Communities (Rights Against Insurers) Regulations 2002 to effectively enable a Claimant to pursue the insurer of a vehicle despite the fact that the driver of the same is unknown. This article, drafted by Park Square Barristers’ insurance indemnity specialists, Richard Paige and Judy Dawson, looks at the Court of Appeal judgment and the implications for the insurance industry.’

Full Story

Park Square Barristers, 19th June 2017

Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk

Limitation and the threshold for article 3/8 investigative claims – UK Police Law Blog

Posted June 12th, 2017 in delay, domestic violence, human rights, judges, limitations, news, time limits by sally

‘Lavender J in MLIA & CLEL v Chief Constable of Hampshire [2017] EWHC 292 (QB) has offered helpful guidance on the application of the limitation defence for human rights claims, in a case which failed to meet the threshold for engaging the investigative duty under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention.’

Full Story

UK Police Law Blog, 11th June 2017

Source: ukpolicelawblog.com

Calling time – Counsel

Posted June 9th, 2017 in company law, courts, jurisdiction, limitations, news, time limits by sally

‘The law on limitation directions – a useful tool for junior litigators attempting to restore companies to the register – has finally been anchored down by the courts. Ben Harding reports on the practical effect.’

Full Story

Counsel, June 2017

Source: www.counselmagazine.co.uk

High Court strikes out negligence claim against private client firm – Legal Futures

Posted May 31st, 2017 in law firms, limitations, negligence, news, striking out, trusts by sally

The High Court has struck out a negligence claim against London private client specialists Harcus Sinclair on the grounds that it was statute-barred.

Full Story

Legal Futures, 31st May 2017

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

What’s in a name? Appeal judges reject pleas of claimant who sued wrong firm – Legal Futures

‘Appeal judges have rejected the pleas of a claimant who, faced by two law firms with similar names set up by the same solicitor, sued the wrong one.’

Full story

Legal Futures, 16th May 2017

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

The addition of parties after limitation has expired – Zenith PI

Posted May 9th, 2017 in appeals, law firms, limitations, negligence, news, personal injuries by tracey

‘Godfrey Morgan Solicitors (A Firm) v Michael Arms [2017] EWCA Civ 323. The Appellant firm of solicitors appealed against the decision of a first instance appeal which determined that it had been properly added as a Defendant to a claim for professional negligence despite the prior expiry of the relevant limitation period.’

Full story

Zenith PI, 8th May 2017

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Judy Dawson discusses another case involving incorrect Court fees paid and whether this gifts the Defendant a limitation defence – Park Square Barristers

Posted February 17th, 2017 in damages, fees, limitations, news by sally

‘In January 2016 I discussed the case of Lewis v Ward Hadaway [2015] EWCA 3503 (Ch) and the possible avenues for Defendants to counter a practice which was at least perceived to be increasing of Claimant solicitors issuing Claim Forms for values below the actual value of the claim, in order to delay the payment of higher Court Fees.’

Full story

Park Square Barristers, 13th January 2017

Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk

Judge rules human rights claim against council out of time – Local Government Lawyer

Posted January 27th, 2017 in disabled persons, human rights, limitations, local government, news by sally

‘A man who claimed Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council breached his human rights cannot pursue his case because of the length of time taken to launch the action, the High Court has ruled.’

Full story

Local Government Lawyer, 26th January 2017

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Paying the Incorrect Court Fee – Some Relief for Claimants – Zenith PI Blog

Posted January 16th, 2017 in courts, fees, limitations, news by sally

‘This is another case in which the court considered a Defendant’s application that a claim was statute barred following the payment of an incorrect court fee on issue. Zenith Chamber’s Gordon Exall acted for the successful Claimant.’

Full story

Zenith PI Blog, 12th January 2017

Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com

Judge rejects £1m+ misfeasance in public office claim as statute-barred – Local Government Lawyer

Posted November 17th, 2016 in limitations, local government, misfeasance in public office, news, noise by sally

‘Tunbridge Wells Borough Council has defeated a claim for misfeasance in public office brought in the High Court by the owners of a local joinery business.’

Full story

Local Government Lawyer, 17th November 2016

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Webber v Department for Education (Pensions Ombudsman intervening) – WLR Daily

Posted October 25th, 2016 in complaints, law reports, limitations, ombudsmen, pensions, time limits by tracey

Webber v Department for Education (Pensions Ombudsman intervening) [2016] EWHC 2519 (Ch)

‘The complainant was a teacher and a member of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme. In November 2009 the pension scheme’s administrator wrote to the complainant seeking recovery of pension overpayments in respect of each year since 2002. The complainant made a complaint to the Pensions Ombudsman, pursuant to Part X of the Pension Schemes Act 1993, in which he took a limitation defence. The administrator wrote to the ombudsman in December 2011, indicating it opposed the complaint. The ombudsman went on to reject the complainant’s limitation defence. On his appeal, the High Court held that the complainant had a limitation defence for the recovery of any overpayments made more than six years before the relevant date when the limitation period was to be regarded as having stopped. On a further determination, the ombudsman held that the relevant cut off date for the purposes of limitation was that of the November 2009 letter, namely, the date of an unequivocal demand.’

WLR Daily, 14th October 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

High Court rejects attempt to end case over ‘wrong’ court fee payment – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted October 20th, 2016 in courts, fees, limitations, news by tracey

‘An architect and engineering firm’s application to claim a dispute was invalid because the wrong court fees had been paid and the limitation period had expired has ‘no prospect of success’, the High Court has ruled.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 19th October 2016

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Out of time and out of luck: extending time for service out of the jurisdiction – Hardwicke Chambers

‘The recent decision of Cox J in Foran v Secret Surgery Ltd and others is a salutary tale emphasising the strict approach of the courts to applications to extend time for service of the claim form. Here, the fact that service had to be effected out of the jurisdiction did not avail the claimant, with the result that her claim was time-barred against three of the four defendants.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 24th May 2016

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk