header-logo header-logo

27 October 2017 / David O'Brien
Issue: 7767 / Categories: Features , Professional negligence
printer mail-detail

Know your limitation

nlj_7767_obrien

Verbose but unambiguous. David O’Brien discusses S 14A & the parameters of limitation

  • The interpretation of s 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 in the case of Halsall.
  • Whether the courts are applying s 14A correctly, and whether the current approach could lead to litigation where loss is still speculative.

A number of hot topics in the professional negligence arena came before Mrs Justice Moulder in the recent case of Halsall and Others v Champion Consulting Limited and Others [2017] EWHC 1079 (QB), [2017] All ER (D) 44 (Jun). The result ultimately turned on the application of s 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) and the claim, which otherwise would have succeeded, was dismissed as statute barred. But was the decision on limitation correct?

The facts

The defendants were tax advisers who, in 2003, advised the claimants to invest in charity shell and film schemes. The schemes involved the purchase by the claimants of shares in certain companies, which the defendants assured them would ultimately result in tax relief.

In breach

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll