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

Posted May 25th, 2012 in corporation tax, EC law, law reports, limitations, restitution by tracey

Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Customs and Excise Comrs (formerly Inland Revenue Comrs): [2012] UKSC 19;  [2012] WLR (D)  161

“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

Posted April 5th, 2012 in appeals, breach of trust, fraud, law reports, limitations, time limits by sally

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

Posted March 19th, 2012 in appeals, damages, limitations, news, nuclear weapons, personal injuries by sally

“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

Posted March 16th, 2012 in armed forces, law reports, limitations, nuclear weapons, personal injuries by tracey

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

Posted January 31st, 2012 in damages, limitations, negligence, news, time limits by sally

“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.”

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 25th January 2012

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Ryanair Holdings Ltd v Office of Fair Trading and another – WLR Daily

Posted January 5th, 2012 in airlines, appeals, competition, law reports, limitations, news, tribunals by tracey

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

Legal Services Commission v Henthorn – WLR Daily

Posted December 2nd, 2011 in barristers, fees, law reports, legal aid, limitations, repayment by tracey

Legal Services Commission v Henthorn: [2011] EWCA Civ 1415;  [2011] WLR (D)  343

” A claim for recoupment of alleged overpayment of money paid on account to counsel, in respect of work done under a civil legal aid certificate, was governed by regulation 100(8) of the Civil Legal Aid Regulations 1989, and the cause of action accrued from the date of the ‘assessment’ there referred to, and time did not start to run until that date, not when the work was completed by counsel.”

WLR Daily, 30th November 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.”

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.