Limitation

Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis

Limitation Act 1980

When seeking to bring a claim, it is important to ensure that it is brought within the time frames provided for under the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980). A failure to do so could enable a defendant to have a complete defence against the claim.

It is likewise important to know when the limitation period starts, the impact of its expiry and which party bears the burden of proof of showing whether the limitation period has expired.

For more information, see Practice Note: Limitation Act 1980—general application.

Amendments to statements of case

For specific guidance on the courts’ discretion to permit amendments to statements of case after the expiry of a limitation period pursuant to LA 1980, s 35, CPR 17.4 and CPR 19.6, see Practice Notes:

  1. •

    Limitation—amendments to statements of case, set-offs and counterclaims

  2. •

    Limitation—amending a party name and substituting or adding (joinder) of parties

  3. •

    Limitation and amendments—illustrative decisions (pre-May 2025) [Archived]

Principal

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

Dispute Resolution weekly highlights—12 February 2026

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes: analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including the 193rd Practice Direction update and the Court of Appeal decision in South Bank Hotel Management Company Ltd v Galliard Hotels Ltd (limitation); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

Without notice orders under the Chabra jurisdiction and the gateways for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction (Gilbert v Broadoak)

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case concerns a worldwide freezing order (WFO) which had been obtained on a without notice basis as against two overseas third parties under the Chabra jurisdiction. At the return hearing, the freezing order was discharged by the High Court, on the basis that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the respondents. The judge held that none of the jurisdictional gateways within CPR PD 6B, para 3.1 applied. As such, and even though there was evidence to the effect that there was a risk of dissipation of funds, the lack of jurisdiction was decisive and led to the discharge of the WFO. The court also considered that there were breaches of the duty of fair presentation at the without notice hearing, but that these were not sufficient in themselves to justify discharging and not continuing (or reimposing) the order. Written by Georgia Whiting, legal counsel (contentious construction), Capita.

Minutes of the OPR Committee meeting—17 November 2025

The minutes of the Online Procedure Rule Committee (OPRC) meeting of 17 November 2025 (conducted in a hybrid format at The Rolls Building (Royal Courts of Justice) and via video conference) cover a number of issues including feedback from the committee’s open meeting, prioritisation of work on the draft Inclusion Framework, possible expansion of the OPRC’s rulemaking powers (including proposals relating to online civil money and damages claims), property and possession rule development (including paper forms for non-digital users), and an update on Residential Property Tribunal digitisation and service coherence.

Court of Appeal confirms narrow scope for post-limitation substitution in wrong defendant cases (Adcamp LLP v Office Properties)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has ruled that CPR 19.6(3)(b) does not permit substitution of defendants after expiry of the relevant limitation period where such substitution would change the essential facts necessary to establish liability against the substituted defendant. The claimants (respondents in the appeal) had issued proceedings against firms which had acquired the alleged wrongdoers, believing that any liabilities had been transferred. When it emerged (or was at least disputed) that liabilities had not been transferred, they sought to add or substitute the predecessor firm after limitation had expired. The Court of Appeal concluded that CPR 19.6(3)(b) was not engaged since the substitution would change the claim in substance, as an essential element of the case against the original defendant (the pleaded basis for the acquiring firm’s liability) would be replaced by the primary liability claim against the substituted defendant. It was, in effect, a different claim against a different party. The Court of Appeal was clear that any perceived harshness this might cause to claimants could not be mitigated by adopting a broad reading of CPR 19.6(3)(b). Rather, it considered the problem (if any) was caused by earlier binding Court of Appeal authority which had confined the ‘mistake’ gateway in CPR 19.6(3)(a) to errors of name (misnomer) and excluded cases of mistaken legal responsibility/liability (identity). Any solution, if required, would therefore be a matter for the Supreme Court.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

Standstill agreements to suspend or extend limitation

Standstill agreements to suspend or extend limitationThis Practice Note provides guidance on standstill agreements (or tolling agreements) used for either suspending the running of limitation or extending the period of limitation. It explains the distinction between such standstill agreements and

After a letter of claim is sent, is there a time limit (apart from the 30-day limit) on when to issue a

After a letter of claim is sent, is there a time limit (apart from the 30-day limit) on when to issue a claim under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims? If a letter of claim was sent a year ago, is an updated letter of claim required, or can the claim be issued?We have assumed that It is assumed

Non-compliance with pre-action provisions

Non-compliance with pre-action provisionsThis Practice Note considers when non-compliance with a pre-action protocol or the Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols may result in a party being sanctioned and what those sanctions might be.For more general guidance on the extent to which

What is the limitation period for a breach of fiduciary duty claim? Does the period run from the date of

What is the limitation period for a breach of fiduciary duty claim? Does the period run from the date of breach or the date when the breach could reasonably have been discovered?Regarding limitation periods generally, see Practice Notes: Limitation—the principal limitation periods and Limitation Act
Standstill agreements to suspend or extend limitation

Standstill agreements to suspend or extend limitation

Standstill agreements to suspend or extend limitationThis Practice Note provides guidance on standstill agreements (or tolling agreements) used for either suspending the running of limitation or extending the period of limitation. It explains the distinction between such standstill agreements and

After a letter of claim is sent, is there a time limit (apart from the 30-day limit) on when to issue a

After a letter of claim is sent, is there a time limit (apart from the 30-day limit) on when to issue a

After a letter of claim is sent, is there a time limit (apart from the 30-day limit) on when to issue a claim under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims? If a letter of claim was sent a year ago, is an updated letter of claim required, or can the claim be issued?We have assumed that It is assumed

Non-compliance with pre-action provisions

Non-compliance with pre-action provisions

Non-compliance with pre-action provisionsThis Practice Note considers when non-compliance with a pre-action protocol or the Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols may result in a party being sanctioned and what those sanctions might be.For more general guidance on the extent to which

What is the limitation period for a breach of fiduciary duty claim? Does the period run from the date of

What is the limitation period for a breach of fiduciary duty claim? Does the period run from the date of

What is the limitation period for a breach of fiduciary duty claim? Does the period run from the date of breach or the date when the breach could reasonably have been discovered?Regarding limitation periods generally, see Practice Notes: Limitation—the principal limitation periods and Limitation Act