Abdulla and others v Birmingham City Council – WLR Daily

Abdulla and others v Birmingham City Council: [2011] EWCA Civ 1412;  [2011] WLR (D)  342

“Where an equal pay claim under the Equal Pay Act 1970 was brought in an ordinary court within the six-year limitation period for bringing contract claims, the claim could not be struck out under section 2(3) of the 1970 Act on the grounds that it could be ‘more conveniently disposed of’ by an employment tribunal in circumstances where it was known to the court that the tribunal would have to decline jurisdiction to deal with the claim on the basis that it had been brought outside the six-month time limit for presenting an unequal pay complaint to the tribunal.”

WLR Daily, 29th November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

The Atomic Veterans Litigation – 4 New Square

“In the week commencing 14 November 2011, a seven-member panel of Justices of the Supreme Court (L Phillips, L Walker, L Hale, L Brown, L Mance, L Kerr and L Wilson) heard the Claimants’ appeal from the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Atomic Veterans Litigation (AB v Ministry of Defence [2010] EWCA Civ 1317). Argument took place over four days and judgment was reserved by the Supreme Court.”

Full story

4 New Square, 21st November 2011

Source: www.4newsquare.com

Green v Eadie and others – WLR Daily

Posted November 22nd, 2011 in jurisdiction, law reports, limitations, misrepresentation, solicitors by sally

Green v Eadie and others [2011] WLR (D) 335

“Sections 2 and 9(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 both applied to a claim brought under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and such a claim was therefore, by virtue of section 8(2) of the Limitation Act 1980, not within the ambit of section 8(1) of that Act. The applicable limitation period was therefore six years. Where a person entered into a flawed transaction which might have been capable of being remedied by rescission, loss was first suffered and the cause of action therefore accrued when the person entered into the flawed transaction.”

WLR Daily, 18th November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Iaia v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca – WLR Daily

Posted May 27th, 2011 in damages, EC law, law reports, limitations by sally

Iaia v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (Case C-452/09); [2011] WLR (D) 180

“A member state could rely on the expiry of a reasonable limitation period as a defence in legal proceedings brought by an individual seeking compensation for the member state’s failure to implement a Directive correctly provided the member state was not responsible for the delay in the claimant’s ability to bring the action.”

WLR Daily, 19th May 2011

Source: www.iclr.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.

Lane v Cullens Solicitors and others – WLR Daily

Posted May 13th, 2011 in intestacy, law reports, limitations, negligence, solicitors by tracey

Lane v Cullens Solicitors and others [2011] EWCA Civ 547; [2011] WLR (D) 157

“Where a personal representative had distributed sums out of the relevant estate notwithstanding a notified third party claim against the estate, and sought to sue solicitors in professional negligence, the applicable limitation period could be found to run from the time at which the legal position had altered, viz upon payment out, regardless of the question whether the third party claim was correctly to be characterised as a vested or a contingent claim.”

WLR Daily, 11th May 2011

Source: www.iclr.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

Berezovsky v Abramovich – WLR Daily

Posted February 28th, 2011 in amendments, appeals, intimidation, law reports, limitations, pleadings by sally

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

Posted February 24th, 2011 in appeals, land registration, law reports, limitations, mistake by sally

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

Posted October 27th, 2010 in civil procedure rules, law reports, limitations, negligence, service by sally

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

Posted October 25th, 2010 in council tax, enforcement, insolvency, law reports, limitations by sally

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

Posted August 9th, 2010 in appeals, civil procedure rules, law reports, limitations, mistake, substitution by sally

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

Posted March 12th, 2010 in appeals, debts, law reports, limitations, mortgages by sally

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

Posted March 12th, 2010 in adverse possession, appeals, law reports, limitations, roads by sally

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

Posted December 17th, 2009 in arbitration, enforcement, law reports, limitations by sally

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

Posted December 4th, 2009 in consumer protection, defective goods, EC law, law reports, limitations by sally

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

Posted July 27th, 2009 in law reports, limitations, personal injuries by sally

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

Posted June 10th, 2009 in law reports, limitations, personal injuries by sally

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