header-logo header-logo

09 July 2021 / Chris Bushell , Ceri Morgan
Issue: 7940 / Categories: Features , Limitation , Profession
printer mail-detail

Limitation: know your limits

52435
Chris Bushell & Ceri Morgan examine the increasingly high bar for claims to extend the limitation period
  • Recent judgments provide clarity on the application of the Limitation Act 1980 and the high threshold for claimants to postpone the limitation period under s 32 or s 14A.
  • The case law suggests the English courts are taking an increasingly robust approach to attempts to prolong the limitation period and are willing to manage time-barred claims on a summary basis.

The litigation market is well known to be counter-cyclical—an uptick in disputes usually follows market turmoil. The 2008 global financial crisis was no exception, and disputes with their factual roots in this period are still heard by the English courts today.

As an inexorable consequence, the court must grapple with complicated limitation arguments, and decisions fleshing out the law demonstrate the judiciary’s willingness to consider time-barred claims on a summary basis, in circumstances where, traditionally, such cases have been less amenable to a strike out or summary determination.

This article considers

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