Practitioners may be allowed to revive cases which might previously have appeared statute barred, say Jolyon Connell & Jeremy Gordon
In the recent case of FHR European Ventures LLP and others v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014] UKSC 45, [2014] 4 All ER 79 the Supreme Court determined that a bribe or secret commission obtained by an agent in breach of a fiduciary duty is held on trust by the defaulting agent for his beneficiary principal. Despite a number of articles considering that judgment and some of its implications, one consequence of potentially great significance to practitioners has been somewhat overlooked: limitation. This article considers that point specifically and highlights how the Supreme Court’s decision in FHR may allow claims which were once considered to be statute barred to be advanced in a new manner.
Underlying principles
Section 21(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 provides as follows: “No period of limitation prescribed by this Act shall apply to an action by a beneficiary under a trust, being an action—(a) in
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
