Personal Injury analysis: The High Court has recently overturned a first instance decision, where the lower court had refused to disapply a limitation period for a claimant pursuant to section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980). Mr Justice Mann held that the lower court had unfairly placed significant weight on a specific period of delay in bringing the proceedings, and further incorrectly emphasised the claimant’s culpability for that delay. Overturning the decision, and reconsidering the key indices to be addressed when faced with an application to disapply LA 1980, Mr Justice Mann held that the delay was excusable in the circumstances, and that a fair trial was still possible. The evidential position of the defendant had not been unduly worsened by the passage of time, although the delay was considered to be very close to the point at which it would be unfair to defendants to extend the period. Written by Judith Martin, partner at Clyde & Co LLP.

Construction analysis: The question of whether limitation applies to adjudication has long been a source of academic debate. In the first of three articles, James Frampton and Thomas Saunders, barristers at Keating Chambers, revisit this topic, following the Technology and Construction Court’s decision in LRJ Interiors v Cooper Construction.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. It summarises a number of illustrative decisions dated pre-May 2025 relevant to the court’s discretion to permit amendments to parties and statements of case after the expiry of a limitation period. It refers to section 35 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) as well as relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), in particular CPR 17.4 and CPR 19.6, and focuses primarily on cases which are most likely to be of interest to a dispute resolution practitioner. For summaries of illustrative decisions relevant to LA 1980 dated post May 2025, see Practice Note: Limitation—illustrative decisions. For guidance on the circumstances when a court may allow amendments to a party’s statement of case following a relevant period of limitation having expired (or potentially expired), see Practice Notes: • Limitation—amendments to statements of case, set-offs and counterclaims • Limitation—amending a party name and substituting or adding (joinder) of parties For further details and links to practical content which more

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. It summarises a number of key and/or illustrative decisions relevant to the extension or postponement of limitation periods under the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) dated pre-June 2025. For summaries of illustrative decisions relevant to LA 1980 dated post June 2025, see Practice Note: Limitation—illustrative decisions. For guidance on the circumstances when a court may allow an extension of time pursuant to LA 1980, see Practice Notes: • Limitation—fraud, deliberate concealment and mistake • Limitation—extensions of time under the Limitation Act 1980 • Limitation—latent damage For further details and links to practical content which more broadly addresses LA 1980 and related limitation issues relevant to a dispute resolution practitioner, see: Limitation—overview. Case details and analysis Judgment date Case summary Supreme Court Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) v Tradition Financial Services Ltd; Nathanael Eurl Ltd (in liquidation) v Tradition Financial Services Ltd [2025] UKSC 18News Analyses:—Insolvency–fraudulent trading and dishonest assistance (Bilta and others v Tradition Financial Services)—Supreme

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: This case concerned a claim relating to childhood physical and sexual abuse in a care home in the 1980s. The key issue was limitation. It was the first case to explore the implications of section 96 of the Crime and Policing Act 1986 which sought to remove the limitation period for cases relating to childhood sexual abuse. Produced in partnership with Robert Parkin, barrister of Deka Chambers.

Reform of limitation in child sexual abuse claims The Report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), published in October 2022, recommended reform of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) in order to remove the three-year limitation period for personal injury claims brought by victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. On 5 February 2025 the government issued a press release announcing that the three-year time limit for such claims would be removed and, in accordance with the IICSA recommendation, the burden would be on the defendant to ‘show a fair trial cannot proceed if they intend to block one’. The press release states that ‘all cases brought will proceed unless the defendant proves that a fair hearing cannot take place, for example due to lack of evidence’. The intention of the reform is to ‘enable cases to be heard more easily, and protect victims from reliving their trauma’. See: LNB News 05/02/2025 35. The Ministry of Justice’s Consultation Response published the same day also states: ‘…removal

Coronavirus (COVID-19): The COVID-19 Clinical Negligence Protocol (2020) (last updated in June 2021) was created to adapt clinical negligence claims handling and litigation processes during the coronavirus (COVID-19) situation. The protocol covered limitation and extensions of time, communication, service, medical examinations, exchange of evidence, interim payments, settlement meetings and mediations, BACS payments, costs budgeting and hearings (including adjournments). This Protocol was superseded in August 2024 by the Clinical Negligence Claims Agreement 2024 which builds on the previous Protocol with various practices now adopted into everyday claims management. The new Agreement is not contractually binding but places an emphasis on collaborative working between the parties. Limitation generally Section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) provides a general rule that an action founded on tort shall not be brought after expiry of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. A special rule, however, applies, under LA 1980, s 11, in respect of claims seeking damages for personal injury (which includes clinical negligence cases). Under section 11, that

This Practice Note provides guidance on the application of limitation periods in the context of insurance and reinsurance claims. It considers how to calculate when a cause of action accrues and the effect of a limitation period expiring. It also provides guidance on how limitation periods may be extended, including the use of standstill agreements. This Practice Note also considers limitation periods and other important time limits in special cases such as contribution claims. Introduction In England and Wales, the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) prescribes the time limits for pursuing certain claims. See Practice Note: Limitation—the principal limitation periods for an overview of that statute and its interpretation. Claims brought by and against insurers and reinsurers are subject to the same time limits, but there are some nuances of insurance and reinsurance contracts, and of London market practice generally, which have produced limitation issues that are the subject of this Practice Note. This Practice Note covers: • Calculating when the cause of action accrues

This Practice Note covers limitation in noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) cases. It considers limitation issues that frequently arise in NIHL claims including calculating the claimant’s ‘date of knowledge’ for the purposes of section 14 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980), causation, tinnitus, case law and the discretionary exception to limitation under LA 1980, s 33. Limitation is almost always an issue in NIHL claims. The typical claimant is someone who was exposed to noise at work much more than three years before they approached a solicitor enquiring about a claim. They are therefore usually outside the primary three-year limitation period applicable to personal injury claims and will need to rely on the alternative provision in relation to date of knowledge as set out in LA 1980, s 11(4)(b). In LA 1980, s 14, the date of knowledge is defined as: ‘…the date on which he first had knowledge of the following facts— (a) that the injury in question was significant; and (b) that the injury was attributable in whole or in part to the act or

Limitation of liability means a contractual provision to reduce or exclude the types and amounts of liabilities one party may recover from another party relating to default or non-performance in connection with a contract. Such provisions are subject to numerous controls and restrictions imposed by statute and by common law.

Limitation of actions refers to the legally prescribed time limits within which a claimant must commence court proceedings, after which a claim becomes time-barred and generally cannot be pursued. In practice, it governs when civil claims in contract, tort/delict, personal injury, debt, property and other areas must be issued. The concept is given statutory effect: primarily the Limitation Act 1980 (England and Wales), the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, the Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and the Statute of Limitations 1957 (Ireland), each setting out specific limitation or prescription periods, rules on accrual of causes of action and provisions for postponement (for example, fraud, concealment, mistake, disability and latent damage). In England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Ireland, limitation is generally a procedural defence which must be pleaded, whereas in Scots law prescription can extinguish the underlying obligation. Limitation of actions is crucial in assessing claim viability, advising on pre‑action strategy, drafting proceedings, and evaluating settlement and litigation risk. Lawyers must identify the correct limitation or prescription period, consider any extension or suspension provisions, and diarise long-stop dates to avoid claims becoming irrecoverable.

This Practice Note considers the law of limitation in Scotland. For guidance on: • the law of prescription in Scotland, see Practice Notes: Prescription in Scotland and Short negative prescription in Scotland—the prescriptive period for obligations to pay damages • other key areas of Scots law and procedure, see our Scotland collection • the closest equivalent in England and Wales, see: Limitation: general—overview which, as well as giving an overview of this topic, links through to more detailed guidance on various aspects of the law of limitation in England and Wales Key: • AEVA 2018—Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 • LR(MP)(S)A 1980—Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1980 • PL(S)A 1973—Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 • P(S)A 2018—Prescription (Scotland) Act 2018 Difference between limitation and prescription in Scots law PL(S)A 1973, sometimes referred to as the ‘1973 Act’, deals with both prescription and limitation. However, they are quite different concepts and the difference between them is important, particularly in practice. The Scots law of limitation, which