Limitation Periods steers practitioners through the complexities of the law of limitations, giving detailed guidance in all areas of law from preliminary issues to proceedings. The leading title in the field and now into its 7th edition, Limitation Periods also covers European and International limitation issues.
The passage of four years since the last edition has produced a crop of cases considering, and deciding, important points in limitation.
Identifies aspects of EU Law and Human Rights Law, which continue to generate case law. This includes Bedford v Bedfordshire CC on extensions of time under the HRA and the latest instalment of the Franked Investment Income Litigation on retrospective curtailments of the limitation period.
Features interesting cases from real property dealing with, among other things, mistakes on the Register (Parshall v Hackney) and limitation in relation to the river bed (Couper v Albion Properties Ltd).
Updated Section 21, this time from the Supreme Court, which in the important case of Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria, restricted the scope of the unlimited time given to bring an action under section 21(1), thereby resolving a controversy of some antiquity.
Discusses the possible end of attempts to use section 21 as a way of evading the section 2 limitation period by characterising many tort cases as involving breaches of fiduciary duty.
Refers to Philips & Co v Bath Housing Co-operative Ltd, which came to an important conclusion about the meaning of "debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim" in relation to a solicitor's bill of costs.
Covers Chandra v Brooke North and D&G Cars Ltd v Essex Police Authority, which both considered yet again the notion of an action arising out of the same set of facts as an existing claim for the purposes of section 35. Also refers to Nemeti v Sabre Insurance Company which dealt with the circumstances in which the substitution of a party is necessary for the continuance of the original action.
Includes Bach v Davis, where enforcement of judgments was considered, whilst Morrisons v Mastercard concerned the use of a procedural device to allow an application to amend to be treated as having been made in time.
Features the Foreign Limitation Periods Act, which was before the court in Bank St Petersburg v Archangelsky.
