Dispute Resolution analysis: The Supreme Court has clarified the meaning of ‘deliberate concealment’ under section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980). Concealment includes both actively hiding something and simply not disclosing it. However, the Supreme Court rejected any other ‘elaboration’ on the term. In particular, there is no need to establish the defendant was under a legal or moral duty to make the disclosure. Upholding the Court of Appeal’s decision, the Supreme Court found that Mrs Potter’s claim against Canada Square (and likely many others) is not time barred. While this will be welcomed by claimants seeking to postpone the limitation period, there was also good news for defendants. The Supreme Court held that the word ‘deliberate’ does not include the term ‘reckless’, as there must always be an intention to conceal. Overall, while the meaning of the legislative terms has been clarified, questions remain over the status of claims based on non-disclosure, given the requirement...
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with ³ÉÈËÓ°Òô or register for a free trial
EXISTING USER? SIGN IN CONTINUE READING GET A QUOTE
To read the full news article, register for a free Lexis+ trial
**Trials are provided to all ³ÉÈËÓ°Òô content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these ³ÉÈËÓ°Òô services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
* denotes a required field
Letter of claim—contractual debt claim[On the headed notepaper of the creditor’s solicitors]FAO [Insert name of the debtor’s solicitors][Address line 1][Address line 2][Postcode][Date]Dear [insert name][Insert creditor’s name] AND [Insert debtor’s name]Letter of claim[We write further to our letter
Dispute Resolution analysis: the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) is in the process of making significant amendments to a number of the pre-action protocols and will be introducing a new debt protocol. We understand that it is likely that the following protocols will come into force on 6 April
The pre-action protocols and when they applyThis Practice Note details the pre-action protocols, referring to the Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, as well as providing an overview of the various specific pre-action protocols which might be relevant to your dispute.It provides
Letter of claim—against a surveyor for breach of contract and, or alternatively, negligence in producing a valuation[ON THE HEADED NOTEPAPER OF CLAIMANT’S SOLICITORS]FAO [RELEVANT NAME][NAME OF DEFENDANT SURVEYOR][ADDRESS LINE 1][ADDRESS LINE 2][POSTCODE][DATE]Dear [insert organisation
0330 161 1234