Bank Notes

D - Date of knowledge

19/3/24

FAROL HOLDINGS LTD v CLYDESDALE BANK PLC [2024] EWHC 593 (Ch)

The court dismissed claims relating to so-called tailored business loans. Under the loans the lender hedged its interest rate risk in the market and the customers’ interest liabilities were capped at fixed rates but increased if market rates fell. The customers were liable for break costs incurred by the lender when the loans and hedges terminated. Claims that the lender had no liability to pay break costs were rejected and the lender’s terms were held to have entitled it to recover loss arising from break costs. The court summarised principles of deceit and misrepresentation [206] but found that none of the representations about break costs were false and allegations of deceit were not made out. Claims that the lender misrepresented that its profit was limited to the interest rate margin also failed because a reasonable person in the position of the customers would not have understood any such representation was being made. Although the primary limitation periods for the claims had expired, the limitation periods for a number of the claims would have been extended under s.14A and/or s.32 Limitation Act 1980 by reason of the customers’ lack of knowledge. The court also reviewed principles for finding an unfair relationship [751] but rejected the claim made on this basis.

22/5/20

DSG RETAIL LTD v MASTERCARD INCORPORATED [2020] EWCA Civ 671

Considers the meaning of “reasonable diligence” for the purpose of the Limitation Act 1980 s 32 [27], [64]. On the facts, the question of whether or not the claimants had reason to investigate and whether they could with reasonable diligence have discovered the relevant concealment required disclosure and factual evidence to be fairly determined [70]. Also considers the meaning of “cause of action” [88].

19/5/17

TRILOGY MANAGEMENT LTD v HARCUS SINCLAIR (A FIRM) [2017] EWHC 1164 (Ch)

A claim against a firm of solicitors for allegedly altering a document without instructions was dismissed summarily as being time-barred. There was no prospect of the claimant establishing that the commencement of the limitation period for that breach was postponed by section 32 Limitation Act 1980. The alleged breach was not committed in circumstances in which it was unlikely to be discovered for some time. Nor was it arguable that the limitation period was extended under s 14A. The claimant could have acquired knowledge that the insertion of the additional words was instigated by firm at an early stage.

23/10/15

RAYNER v WOLFERSTANS (A FIRM) [2015] EWHC 2957 (QB)

Considers date of knowledge for the purposes of s 11 & 14 Limitation Act 1980.

7/5/15

CHINNOCK v VEALE WASBROUGH [2015] EWCA Civ 441

A professional negligence claim was time-barred. The claimant had constructive notice, outside the secondary limitation period in s 14A Limitation Act 1980, that she had a viable claim.

14/6/13

ROGER WARD ASSOCIATES LIMITED v BRITANNIA ASSETS (UK) LIMITED [2013] EWHC 1653 (QB)

The claimant’s claim to rely on the extended limitation period under s 14A Limitation Act failed because the claimant had failed to plead and adduce evidence to prove that it did not have sufficient knowledge to bring a claim sooner than it did. From the evidence adduced by the defendant the court was satisfied that the claimant knew of the essential facts more than 3 years beforehand.

8/3/13

CHANDRA v BROOKE NORTH [2013] EWHC 417 (QB)

The claimants were entitled to rely on the extended limitation period provided by s 14A Limitation Act 1980 to amend professional negligence claims against the defendant to introduce new claims which did not arise out of the same facts as previously pleaded. The claimants did not have the required knowledge to make the new claims until judgment had been given in other proceedings and could not have made the new claims until a stay of the professional negligence proceedings had been lifted.