header-logo header-logo

25 October 2013 / Adrian Kwintner
Issue: 7581 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Limitation
printer mail-detail

Time pressure

istock_000005139948medium

Adrian Kwintner reviews the s 14A special time limit for negligence actions

Recent cases on the extended limitation period under s 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) show that defendants, and their insurers, should carefully review the nature and extent of a claimant’s knowledge of the “material facts”. Cases could be summarily dismissed by arguing the claimant had the requisite knowledge earlier than alleged.

Limitation Act 1980

Primary limitation for negligence actions in tort is six years from accrual of the cause of action. Section 14A provides an additional time limit for actions not involving personal injury. It applies where the claimant does not have knowledge of all the material facts at the date his cause of action accrues. The limitation period can then be extended to three years from the earliest date when the claimant had the knowledge required for bringing an action and a right to bring an action.

Necessity versus conviction

The High Court case of Roger Ward Associates Ltd v Britannia Assets (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 1653

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

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

McCarthy Denning—Harvey Knight & Martin Sandler

McCarthy Denning—Harvey Knight & Martin Sandler

Financial services and regulatory offering boosted by partner hires

NEWS
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
back-to-top-scroll