Age of consent should be 13, says barrister – BBC News
“A prominent barrister specialising in reproductive rights has called for the age
of consent to be lowered to 13.”
BBC News, 8th May 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Category: limitations
Parshall v Hackney – WLR daily
Parshall v Hackney: [2013] EWCA Civ 240; [2013] WLR (D) 124
“Where land was concurrently registered under two different titles, neither owner could be in adverse possession of the land for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980 since such possession would not be unlawful.”
WLR Daily, 26th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Sayers v Lord Chelwood and another – WLR Daily
Sayers v Lord Chelwood and another: [2012] EWCA Civ 1715; [2012] WLR (D) 389
“The burden on a claimant who wished the court to exercise its discretion under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to override the time limit for bringing an action in respect of personal injuries was not necessarily a heavy one. How difficult or easy it would be for the claimant to discharge the burden would depend on the facts of the particular case.”
WLR Daily, 19th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Phillips & Co (a firm) v Bath Housing Co-operative Ltd – WLR Daily
Phillips & Co (a firm) v Bath Housing Co-operative Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1591; [2012] WLR (D) 372
“A solicitors’ claim for costs, billed but not yet fixed by assessment or agreement, fell within the phrase ‘debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim’ in section 29(5)(a) of the Limitation Act 1980.”
WLR Daily, 11th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Miners’ Knee Litigation: Judgment in the Court of Appeal – 4 New Square
“On 25 October 2012, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in the Miners’ Knee Group Litigation. This is the latest determination of the appellate courts on issues of limitation arising in group actions and follows the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the Atomic Veterans Litigation earlier this year.”
Full story (PDF)
4 New Square, 1st November 2012
Source: www.4newsquare.com
Jimmy Savile – the final cost – Halsbury’s Law Exchange
“The Metropolitan police, which is coordinating a nationwide investigation into allegations of abuse against Jimmy Savile, has said that the claims against Savile date back to 1959 and could include more than 60 victims. In my view, this is likely to be a considerable underestimate, based upon the length of time Savile was active (roughly half a century) and the sheer number of children’s homes, hospitals, TV shows and other organisations connected with Savile, where he had access to children on an almost daily basis.”
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 16th October 2012
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
Deutsche Bahn AG and others v Morgan Crucible and others – WLR Daily
Deutsche Bahn AG and others v Morgan Crucible and others: [2012] EWCA Civ 1055; [2012] WLR (D) 244
“Where an addressee of a decision of the European Commission that there had been an infringement of competition law appealed to the General Court of the European Union against that decision, the two-year limitation period for the bringing of ‘follow-on’ proceedings in the Competition Appeal Tribunal would not begin to run against any other addressees of the decision until the appeal had been determined.”
WLR Daily, 31st July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Domestic and Personal Injury Newsletter – Thirty Nine Essex Street
Domestic and Personal Injury Newsletter (PDF)
Thirty Nine Essex Street, June 2012
Source: www.39essex.com
Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Customs and Excise Comrs (formerly Inland Revenue Comrs) – WLR Daily
“Claims for recovery of unlawfully exacted tax under the principle in Woolwich Equitable Building Society v Inland Revenue Comrs [1993] AC 70 (‘the Woolwich principle’) were not limited to those cases where there had been an actual demand by the revenue for payment, but applied generally in all cases where there had been a payment in response to an apparent statutory requirement to pay tax, which was not lawfully due.”
WLR Daily, 23rd May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria – WLR Daily
Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria [2012] EWCA Civ 415; [2012] WLR (D) 108
“An action by a beneficiary under a trust might be brought in respect of any fraud or fraudulent breach of trust to which the trustee was party or privy against both that trustee and any other person who dishonestly assisted him in such fraud or fraudulent breach of trust, in either case, after the expiration of the six-year limitation period for which section 21(3) of the Limitation Act 1980 provided.”
WLR Daily, 3rd April 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
The Atomic Veterans Litigation – 4 New Square
“The Supreme Court handed down judgment in the Atomic Veterans Litigation (AVL) on 14 March 2012. The appeal is the first time the highest court has considered the law of limitation in group actions. The decision as to the correct approach to knowledge for the purpose of s.14(1) Limitation Act 1980 is relevant not only to personal injury claims but also to actions in respect of defective products (ss. 11A(4)(b) and 5(b)) and negligence actions not involving personal injury (s.14A). The decision is also relevant to the law of causation in tort and the extent to which claims may be proved by merely showing a material increase in the risk of harm.”
Full story (PDF)
4 New Square, 14th March 2012
Source: www.4newsquare.com
AB and others v Ministry of Defence – WLR Daily
AB and others v Ministry of Defence: [2012] UKSC 9; [2012] WLR (D) 79
“Reasonable belief that a claimant’s injury was attributable to an act or omission of the defendant was sufficient to satisfy the requirement of knowledge in sections 11 and 14 of the Limitation Act 1980 for the purpose of determining whether his claim was time-barred.”
WLR Daily, 14th March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Timing is Everything – Section 14A in Practice – Hardwicke Chambers
“In a claim for damages for the tort of negligence the cause of action accrues at the date that damage occurs, even if is no-one knows about it at the time. The problem with this principle is vividly illustrated by the famous decision of the House of Lords in Pirelli v Oscar Faber & Partners [1983] 2 AC 1 where the defendant engineers were retained by the claimants to design a chimney at their factory. The chimney was lined with a new material Lytag and completed in July 1969. By April 1970 cracks had appeared at the top of the chimney but the claimants did not become aware of them until November 1977. They made repairs and issued a writ in October 1978. Overturning the decision below the Lords held that the claim was statute barred because the damage had occurred in April 1970, and thus the cause of action was complete more than six years before the claim was issued and, as it happened, more than six years before the claimants knew they had a claim.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 25th January 2012
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Ryanair Holdings Ltd v Office of Fair Trading and another – WLR Daily
Ryanair Holdings Ltd v Office of Fair Trading and another; [2011] EWCA Civ 1579; [2011] WLR (D) 392
“The Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules granted a power to suspend the running of time, with regard to an investigation by the OFT, as a matter of urgency and in order to protect the public interest.”
WLR Daily, 21st December 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
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.”
4 New Square, 21st November 2011
Source: www.4newsquare.com
Green v Eadie and others – WLR Daily
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
“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
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
