This Practice Note considers section 32(1)(c) of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980), which may apply where the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake. Where it applies, the limitation period does not begin to run until the claimant has discovered the mistake, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it. This means that time begins to run when the claimant knows, or could with reasonable diligence know enough to recognise that it has a worthwhile claim. The provision has received less judicial attention than the other limbs of LA 1980, s 32(1), but its application and scope have been clarified in important House of Lords and Supreme Court decisions, particularly in tax claims for recovery of taxes incorrectly paid or paid under legislation later found to be unlawful under EU law. For an overview of LA 1980, s 32 and guidance on issues common to each limb of the provision, including reasonable diligence—see Practice Note: Limitation—fraud, deliberate concealment and mistake. See also the following Practice Notes for related LA 1980, s 32 content:

DR analysis: Mr Justice Stuart-Smith has provided a detailed judgment considering the tricky question of when actionable (or actual) damage is said to have occurred so as to start time running for limitation purposes. Birse, the design and build main contractor, brought claims in negligence against two of its sub-contractors. The judge concluded that actionable damage occurred on practical completion. Up until practical completion, Birse had an interest in the development and accrued rights (such as the right to payment) and would also have been responsible for remedying any defects. Birse’s interest in the development and its contractual rights were ‘assets’ within the scope of the damaged assets rule and thus were capable of being devalued. The devaluation was measurable by reference to the cost of remedying any defects resulting from the sub-contractors’ negligence. Therefore, while the ultimate owner of the development might not yet intimated a claim against Birse, Birse’s own claim against its sub-contractors was fixed in time, at the latest, at the time of practical completion of the development.

Dispute Resolution analysis: In the latest Court of Appeal case about what a claimant needs to do before the expiry of limitation, the court held that: (1) the County Court Money Claim Centre (‘CCMCC’) had not been entitled to reject a claim form with an address for service outside the jurisdiction for failure to file a form N510 with the claim (a mandatory requirement under CPR 6.34), and (2) it was arguable that the action started by the issue of a replacement claim form was ‘brought’ for limitation purposes when the rejected claim form was received by the CCMCC. The court considered the authorities on, but rejected direct analogy with, delivery of a claim form without the appropriate issue fee. Lord Justice Coulson adopted earlier dicta that ‘a claimant must have done all that he or she reasonably could do to bring the matter before the court in the appropriate way (and, I would add, at the appropriate time)’. The court was not persuaded that its decision on the second issue would open floodgates allowing litigants to rely on earlier (unissued) claim forms for the purposes of limitation. Written by Robert Machell, barrister, Chambers of Ian Mayes QC, 1 Essex Court.

This Practice Note considers the limitation period(s) applicable to professional negligence claims. In particular, it addresses the date of accrual in both contract and tort and how the courts have approached issues which are common to such claims. For related limitation guidance, see: Limitation—overview and Practice Notes: • Limitation Act 1980—general application • Limitation—contract claims • Limitation—tort claims For general guidance on professional negligence claims, see also: Professional negligence claims—overview. Professionals owe duties to their clients in both contract and tort When a professional assumes responsibility to perform services for someone who will rely on those services, a duty in tort to exercise reasonable skill and care can arise, even if the services are performed under a contract between those parties (Henderson v Merrett, differing from Tai Hing v Liu Chong Hing). Under the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980), the limitation period for both contract and tort claims is six years but time starts to run: • in contract—from the date of breach (LA 1980, s 5) • in tort (negligence)—from the occurrence

This Practice Note sets out the general limitation periods for the key claims relevant to a dispute resolution practitioner, including references to the appropriate sections in the Limitation Act 1980. It additionally addresses the limitation position when seeking an equitable remedy, in particular for claims concerning breaches of fiduciary duty, and considers briefly the limitation issues relevant to restitution, contribution and insolvency claims. For further information on certain types of claims, see Practice Notes: • Limitation—contract claims • Limitation—tort claims • Limitation—professional negligence claims • Limitation—constructive trust claims • Limitation periods in construction contracts • Defamation—limitation • Quick guide to common time limits for property disputes lawyers • Limitation periods in pension claims • Limitation in insurance and reinsurance claims • Limitation periods applicable to insolvency claims • Trust disputes—defences to breach of trust—Limitation • Time limits under the Limitation Act 1980—personal injury claims • Judicial review—time limits and the pre-action protocol • Limitation periods in arbitration (England & Wales) The principal limitation periods The following table includes the principal types

This Practice Note addresses the issues arising out of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) in relation to tort claims. It sets out the limitation period for actions founded on tort with reference to joint tortfeasors, concurrent duties between contract and tort claims, contingent damage, continuing wrongs and latent damage. For more general guidance concerning limitation, see: Limitation—overview and Practice Notes: • Limitation Act 1980—general application • Limitation—the principal limitation periods Initial considerations A tort consists of ‘a breach of duty which gives a private law right to the party injured to recover compensatory damages at common law from the party causing the injury’ (SAAMCO). In the event that you have an action founded on a tort, the limitation period will be six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued (LA 1980, s 2). Note that the terms of LA 1980, s 2 are widely drawn and are capable of applying to new rights, which are most likely to be statutory claims that the courts classify as a tort. In Factortame

This Practice Note sets out the general principles for calculation of limitation periods provided for by the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980). Key steps From a claimant perspective, limitation analyses are typically prompted by variations of the following questions: • when will the limitation period expire? • what’s the deadline for filing the claim at court? However, in order to answer those questions, you must first carefully identify: • all potential defendants, and • each available cause of action based on the facts of your dispute For guidance and links to content to assist with this process, see: Starting a claim or counterclaim—overview. From the perspective of a defendant, you may need to assess whether or when a claim is statute-barred and the scope for advancing a limitation defence. The same steps need to be followed in order to advise on limitation. In particular, for each cause of action you need to identify: • the relevant limitation period(s), ie the time limit(s) that apply for bringing a claim • the date when time started to run • whether

Arises due to the legal separation of a business entity from those who own it. The liability of the shareholders of a company limited by shares is limited to the amount unpaid, if any, on the shares held by them. This distinguishes companies from sole traders and general partnerships.

A limited liability partnership (LLP) is a body corporate which is formed under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 (LLPA 2000). The majority of law applicable to LLPs is modified company law rather than partnership law. The process for incorporating an LLP is very similar to the procedure for company incorporation. There are three requirements for the incorporation of an LLP, namely (1) two or more persons associated for carrying on a lawful business with a view to profit must have subscribed their names to an incorporation document, (2) the incorporation document must have been delivered to Companies House, and (3) there must also be delivered to Companies House a statement that the first requirement (ie to have two or more persons associated for carrying on a lawful business with a view to profit) has been complied with.

This Practice Note explains what a limited civil restraint order (LCRO) is and the circumstances in which the court will make one under CPR 2.3 and CPR PD 3C. It covers the effect of such orders and the consequences of any breach. It also states who has the power to make a LCRO and what the test is for making a LCRO. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Civil restraint orders which deals with general information on civil restraint orders (CROs) that is common to all types of CRO. Also see Practice Notes: Extended civil restraint orders, General civil restraint orders and Civil proceedings orders against vexatious litigants for information on other orders that can be made against vexatious litigants. What is a limited civil restraint order (LCRO)? A LCRO may be made by a judge of any court where a party has made two or more applications that are totally without merit (CPR PD 3C, para 2.1). It prevents the party from making further applications in the proceedings in which

This Practice Note explains limited civil restraint orders (LCROs). It covers the effect of such orders and the consequences of any breach. It also explains how to make an application for permission under the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, (FPR 2010, PD 4B) and looks at seeking permission to appeal the refusal of such an order. Limited civil restraint orders (LCRO) A LCRO may be made where a party has made two or more applications that are totally without merit. It can be made by a judge of circuit judge level or above. A LCRO: • is limited to the particular proceedings in which it is made • will remain in effect for the duration of the proceedings in which it is made, unless the court otherwise orders, and • must identify the judge or judges to whom an application for permission should be made The description ‘totally without merit’ means ‘bound to fail’. The precise boundaries of the concept have received considerable attention in the context of applications for judicial review. If,

Three of the main types of company available under the CA 2006 are limited companies, namely the private company limited by shares, the public company limited by shares, and the (private) company limited by guarantee. All are distinguished by the limited liability of their shareholders.