“One of the difficulties encountered when advising clients as to the merits of their claim that they have been mis-sold an Interest Rate Hedging Product (IRHP), usually an Interest Rate Swap, is the paucity of decided case law concerning the sale of such products.”
No. 5 Chambers, 21st October 2013
Source: www.no5.com
“The judgment develops the growing body of case law surrounding planning consultants and both the substantive and costs judgments will be of interest to construction and costs practitioners alike. The case also raises interesting issues concerning exclusion clauses (including UCTA), limitation of liability, estoppel, waiver, extensions of time and the correct measure of loss.”
Full story (PDF)
4 New Square, 1st July 2013
Source: www.4newsquare.com
“A claimant’s chose in action represented by his claims in litigation is something which has a value, provided it is not certain or nearly certain to fail. Clients pay lawyers to take care of that chose in action by putting the claim forward in the proper way and by managing its progress in accordance with the rules and orders of the Court.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 25th June 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“The £2m limit above which commercial cases are not subject to automatic costs management is being reviewed, the judge in charge of Jackson implementation has revealed, while also hinting that pre-issue costs may come within costs management in future.”
Litigation Futures, 13th May 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
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: [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 [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
“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
“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: [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 (PDF)
Thirty Nine Essex Street, June 2012
Source: www.39essex.com
“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 [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 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: [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
“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; [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: [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
© Inner Temple Library 2024