In re Overnight Ltd Goldfarb v Higgins and Another
Chancery Division
“The cause of action for fraudulent trading under section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 accrued on the making of the winding-up order.”
The Times, 2nd April 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
In re Overnight Ltd; Goldfarb v Higgins and others; [2009] WLR (D) 49
“The cause of action for fraudulent trading under s 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 arose on the day the winding up order was made and not when either the petition was presented or the provisional liquidator appointed.”
WLR Daily, 12th February 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.
Yorkshire Bank Finance Ltd v Mulhall and Another: [2008] EWCA Civ 1156; [2008] WLR (D) 330
“No provision in the Limitation Act 1980 prevented the enforcement in 2007 of a charging order over land made in 1990 to secure a judgment debt though no attempt at enforcement had been made in the interim.”
WLR Daily, 24th October 2008
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.
Court of Appeal
“A cause of action for damages against the government for failure to implement Community law resulting in failure to provide a remedy in a personal injury case accrued as soon as some measurable damage had been suffered The Court of Appeal so stated when dismissing the appeals of: (i) Derek Keith Spencer against the dismissal of his claim by Mr Justice Holland ([2007] EWHC 1775 (QB)) and (ii) Kenneth Dudley Moore against the dismissal of his claim by Mr Justice Eady ([2007] EWHC 879 (QB)).”
The Times, 24th July 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
A v Hoare (No 2) [2008] EWHC 1573 (QB); [2008] WLR (D) 230
“In considering the factors relevant to the exercise of the court’s discretion under s 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to extend the limitation period beyond that specified in s 11 of the Act, the reasons for the delay in issuing proceedings, and its potentially prejudicial effect, mattered more than the length of the delay, and it was reasonable to delay on account of the defendant’s impecuniosity.”
WLR Daily, 9th July 2008
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.
“A cause of action for damages against the Government for failure to implement Community law and provide a remedy in a personal injury case accrued as soon as some measurable damage had been suffered.”
WLR Daily, 2nd July 2008
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.
Giles v Rhind and Another (No 2)
Court of Appeal
“The court had power to extend the limitation period where a party, allegedly in breach of duty, had entered into a transaction defrauding creditors.”
The Times, 25th March 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Legal Services Commission v Rasool [2008] EWCA Civ 154; WLR (D) 75
“For the purposes of limitation and ascertaining the date of accrual of a cause of action permitting the Legal Services Commission to recover costs following revocation of a legal aid certificate, it was not a condition precedent that the quantum of any such costs should first be established before time started to run.”
WLR Daily, 6th March 2008
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 [2007] EWCA Civ 939
“A party could be substituted under s 35 of the Limitation Act 1980 where the ten-year limitation period for making a claim for damage caused by a defective product had expired, even where the correct party was known to the claimant before the limitation period expired, if the claimant had made a mistake about the name of the defendant and substitution was necessary for the purpose of determining the original action.”
WLR Daily, 10th October 2007
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.
Addition of parties is not same as substitution
Adelson and Another v. Associated Newspapers Ltd.
Court of Appeal
“An order would be made substituting a party to an action after the expiry of the limitation period on the ground that there had been a mistake in relation to the name of a party only if the person who had made the mistake was the person responsible for the issue of the claim form and, had the mistake not been made, the new party would have been named in the pleading.”
The Times, 18th July 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Times ran out for liquidator
In re Eurocruit Europe Ltd. (in liquidation)
Chancery Division
“The limitation period of a claim brought by a liquidator under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 was the same as that applicable to the underlying claim.”
The Times, 16th July 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Adelson and another v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2007] EWCA (Civ) 701
“A court would only grant an order substituting a party to an action after the expiry of the limitation period, pursuant to CPR r 19.5, on the ground that there had been a mistake in relation to the name of a party, if it was shown that the person who had made the mistake was the person responsible for the issue of the claim form and that, had the mistake not been made, the new party would have been named in the pleading.”
WLR Daily, 11th July 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
In re Eurocruit Europe Ltd. [2007] EWHC 1433 (Ch)
“A claim under s 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 did not have a limitation period distinct from the limitation period applicable to the underlying claim.”
WLR Daily, 21st June 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
No power to add late libel claim
Adelson and Another v. Associated Newspapers Ltd.
Queen’s Bench Division
“Where the libel limitation period had expired, there was no jurisdiction to grant an application to amend pleadings by the addition of new claimants.”
The Times, 10th May 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Adelson and another v. Associated Newspapers Ltd.
“There was no jurisdiction under s 35 of the Limitation Act 1980 or under CPR r 19.5 to grant an application to amend pleadings by the addition of new claimants in the course of a libel action after the expiry of the limitation period.”
WLR Daily, 1st May 2007
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.
© Inner Temple Library 2024