‘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.’
Local Government Lawyer, 17th November 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
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
‘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.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 19th October 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘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.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 24th May 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘A 20-day time limit within which claims for breaches of warranty as part of a share purchase agreement (SPA) had to be raised only began running once the buyer was aware of the “proper basis for a claim”, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 29th March 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A High Court judge should not have overturned planning permission granted to a solar farm in Wiltshire in response to a legal challenge brought 11 months after the three-month limitation period then in force had expired, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 1st March 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘It will become easier for victims of competition law breaches to claim compensation when the EU Damages Directive comes into force in December.’
OUT-LAW.com, 29th January 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘It was an “abuse of process” for individuals to deliberately understate the value of their claims against a law firm so that they could avoid paying higher court fees up front and issue their claims within the limitation period, the High Court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 7th January 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The High Court has found a Newcastle law firm’s conduct an abuse of process after it repeatedly failed to pay the proper court fees when it issued claims.’
Legal Futures, 8th January 2016
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
Lewis and others v Ward Hadaway (a firm) [2015] EWHC 3503 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 551
‘In determining whether a party had properly brought a claim before the court so as to stop the clock for limitation purposes, the requirement that the form be accompanied by the “appropriate fee” was not satisfied in circumstances where the act of payment of the fee was in itself an abuse of process. In such circumstances, the claim had not properly been brought and time continued to run for limitation purposes.’
WLR Daily, 21st December 2015
Source: www..iclr.co.uk
Iraqi Civilians v Ministry of Defence (No 2) [2015] EWCA Civ 1241; [2015] WLR (D) 515
‘The primary limitation period of three years under Iraqi limitation law applied to claims in tort brought in the English High Court by Iraqi civilians in respect of alleged unlawful detention and ill-treatment by British armed forces while those forces were in Iraq between March 2003 and the end of 2008.’
WLR Daily, 9th December 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The majority of claims against professionals are framed in contract, the tort of negligence, or a combination of both. As readers of this article will be aware, the Limitation Act 1980 provides the same limitation period for both causes of action: “six years from the date on which the case of action arose.” But readers will also know that those periods frequently begin (and more importantly end) on different dates. This is because a breach of contract is actionable per se, i.e. without the need to prove damage, where as a claim in negligence requires proof of damage, which will often occur some time after the breach of duty, which is said to have caused it. For this reason many claims which are out of time for a claim in contract, are nevertheless in time for a claim in the tort of negligence.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 2nd December 2015
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Today, on the 1st October 2015, when we are supposed to be celebrating the brave new world of the Competition Act 1998 (“CA”) as amended by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA”), cartelists and other competition law infringers up and down the land must be rubbing their hands in glee at the transitional provisions contained in Rule 119 of the Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules 2015 (“the 2015 CAT Rules” or the “New Rules”).’
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 1st October 2015
Source: www.competitionbulletin.com
‘The financial regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is considering a deadline for claims over mis-sold payment protection insurance (PPI).’
BBC News, 2nd October 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Supreme Court, 29th July 2015
Arcadia Group Brands Ltd and others v Visa Inc and others [2015] EWCA Civ 883; [2015] WLR (D) 359
‘Competition cases were not to be treated differently to other claims for the purposes of the application of the “statement of claim” test in the context of section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, which provided for the postponement of the limitation period in the case of concealment of any fact relevant to the plaintiff’s right of action.’
WLR Daily, 5th August 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘On the silver anniversary of the Limitation Act 1980 (“the Act”) and as we approach the emerald anniversary of the coming into force of section 14A of that Act, the recent case of Chinnock v Veale Wasbrough [2015] EWCA Civ 2014 shows that the interpretation of this complicated section remains far from straightforward.’
Full story
Hardwicke Chambers, 15th June 2015
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction plc: [2015] UKSC 38; [2015] WLR (D) 261
‘An unsuccessful party in a construction contract adjudication was entitled to be repaid any money paid pursuant to the adjudication if the underlying dispute was finally determined in his favour, and the cause of action for the recovery of such money accrued on the date on which the money was paid. However, the cause of action of a party who wished to bring proceedings for more than the amount which he had been awarded under an adjudication accrued on the date of the relevant breach of contract or duty.’
WLR Daily, 17th June 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024