Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
Check out our straightforward definitions of common legal terms.
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Access our unrivalled global news content, business information and analytics solutions
Insurance, risk and compliance intelligence using big data, proprietary linking and advanced analytics.
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
been no shortage of limitation cases emanating from the courts recently and so it may be timely (!) for a quick reminder of some of the areas where limitation has been challenged, in most cases, unsuccessfully – with the unsurprising overarching
conclusion that the courts will not willingly grant indulgence when it comes to limitation – so don’t delay or your time’s up.
In the first of a series of three posts, we look at the case of Jacobs and what is knowledge for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980. Look out for parts two and three on Bewry (libel limitation periods) and Arcadia (deliberate
concealment) later this week.
Section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) applies where, at the time the claimant’s cause of action accrues, the claimant does not know certain specified facts about their claim.
It provides an alternative limitation period of three years calculated by reference to when the claimant has (or should reasonably have acquired) knowledge of the relevant facts required for bringing an action in damages in respect of the relevant damage.
When the claimant has (or should reasonably have acquired) knowledge of the relevant facts then the ‘starting date’ occurs and it is from this date that the alternative three year period prescribed by LA 1980, s 14A arises.
The knowledge required for bringing an action for damages in respect of the relevant damage means knowledge of both:
Under LA 1980, s 14A(7), the ‘material facts about the damage are such facts about the damage as would lead a reasonable person who had suffered such damage to consider it sufficiently serious to justify his instituting proceedings for damages against
a defendant who did not dispute liability and was able to satisfy a judgment’.
A person’s knowledge includes knowledge which he might reasonably have been expected to acquire:
In Jacobs, applying the authorities (including the House of Lords in Haward and the Court of Appeal in both Halford and Gravgaard) the Court of Appeal concluded that an inexperienced investor had the ‘relevant knowledge’
to bring a claim against the financial service provider when she received annual statements indicating the drop in the value of her investment.
Had she considered this information on its receipt, as against the original investment literature with which she had been provided on taking out the investment , and spoken to the defendant on receiving her statements, then she would, at that point, have
had the relevant knowledge required.
Having failed to check back against her original documents or make enquiries of the service provider, she could not invoke LA 1980, s 14A to rescue her claim from being debarred on the basis of limitation.
This places quite a high burden on investors to raise with their service provider at the time their investments start to decline any concerns they may have as to the original investment advice, so as to uncover the relevant knowledge to bring a claim
without falling foul of limitation.
LexisPSL Dispute Resolution subscribers can find further guidance on Limitation: Latent Damage.
Click here for a one week free trial.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
0330 161 1234