Act of Parliament | |
Long title | An Act to consolidate the Limitation Acts 1939 to 1980. |
---|---|
Citation | 1980 c. 58 |
Dates | |
Royal assent | 13 November 1980 |
Commencement | 1 May 1981 |
Other legislation | |
Repeals/revokes | |
Status: Amended | |
Text of statute as originally enacted | |
Revised text of statute as amended |
The Limitation Act 1980 (c. 58) [1] is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom applicable only to England and Wales. It is a statute of limitations which provides timescales within which action may be taken (by issuing a claim form) for breaches of the law. For example, it provides that breaches of an ordinary contract are actionable for six years after the event [2] whereas breaches of a deed are actionable for twelve years after the event. [3] In most cases, after the expiry of the time periods specified in the act the remedies available for breaches are extinguished and no action may be taken in the courts in respect of those breaches.
The ordinary time limits allowed by the act are set out below. These limits may, in some cases, be extended or altered. Most of the time limits run from the day after the accrual of action, which is "the earliest time at which an action could be brought". [4] If the potential claimant was not at least 18 or did not have a sound mind at the time of the accrual of action, time will not run until he is at least 18 and has sound mind. [5] Where there has been fraud or concealment, or the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake, time will not run until the fraud, concealment or mistake is discovered or could with reasonable diligence be discovered. [6]
Type of claim | General limitation period | |
---|---|---|
Trusts | Fraudulent breach of trust | No limit [7] |
Recovery of trust property and breach of trust | 6 years [8] | |
Land | Recovery of land | 12 years [9] |
Recovery of money secured by a mortgage | 12 years [10] | |
Recovery of arrears of rent and consequential damages | 6 years [11] | |
Contract | Speciality | 12 years [3] |
Simple contract | 6 years [2] | |
Statute | Sum recoverable by virtue of statute | 6 years [12] |
Tort and personal injury | Tort: general rule | 6 years [13] |
Personal injury | 3 years [14] | |
Fatal Accidents Act 1976 claims | 3 years [15] | |
Consumer Protection Act 1987 claims for personal injury or property damage | 3 years [16] | |
Conversion of goods | 6 years from first conversion | |
Claims for personal injury, death or damage against ships or owners | 2 years [17] | |
Defamation and malicious falsehood | 1 year [18] | |
Contribution | Contribution under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 | 2 years [19] |
Contribution under the Maritime Conventions Act 1911 | 1 year [20] | |
Human Rights Act 1998 claim against a public authority | 1 year [21] | |
Unpaid criminal fine | His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service Magistrates' Court | N/A (No time limit) |
In September 2016 His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) set up the "Historic Debt Project" to tackle long outstanding unpaid criminal fines and financial orders, from debtors who previously were difficult to trace, with the use of new intelligence and tracing tools. Outstanding debts of 10 years and longer are pursued by a dedicated team in the HMCTS National Compliance and Enforcement Service. Magistrates' Court fines, being a criminal matter, are not subject to the Limitations Act 1980 (neither can they be included in bankruptcy, an individual voluntary arrangement (IVA) or a debt relief order DRO).
Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate care expected to be exercised in similar circumstances.
A tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.
Interpleader is a civil procedure device that allows a plaintiff or a defendant to initiate a lawsuit in order to compel two or more other parties to litigate a dispute. An interpleader action originates when the plaintiff holds property on behalf of another, but does not know to whom the property should be transferred. It is often used to resolve disputes arising under insurance contracts, such as when a plaintiff with a personal injury claim has a dispute with medical providers over the payment out of a settlement for medical services provided to treat the plaintiff's injuries.
The Alien Tort Statute, also called the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), is a section in the United States Code that gives federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits filed by foreign nationals for torts committed in violation of international law. It was first introduced by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and is one of the oldest federal laws still in effect in the U.S.
The forms of action were the different procedures by which a legal claim could be made during much of the history of the English common law. Depending on the court, a plaintiff would purchase a writ in Chancery which would set in motion a series of events eventually leading to a trial in one of the medieval common law courts. Each writ entailed a different set of procedures and remedies which together amounted to the "form of action".
Medical malpractice is professional negligence by act or omission by a health care provider in which the treatment provided falls below the accepted standard of practice in the medical community and causes injury or death to the patient, with most cases involving medical error. Claims of medical malpractice, when pursued in US courts, are processed as civil torts. Sometimes an act of medical malpractice will also constitute a criminal act, as in the case of the death of Michael Jackson.
In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation that is imposed on an individual, requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care to avoid careless acts that could foreseeably harm others, and lead to claim in negligence. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. The claimant must be able to show a duty of care imposed by law that the defendant has breached. In turn, breaching a duty may subject an individual to liability. The duty of care may be imposed by operation of law between individuals who have no current direct relationship but eventually become related in some manner, as defined by common law.
Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 is a leading decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law. It established the rule that one's non-natural use of their land, which leads to another's land being damaged as a result of dangerous things emanating from the land, is strictly liable.
An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor. The term negligence, on the other hand, pertains to a tort that simply results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take sufficient care in fulfilling a duty owed, while strict liability torts refers to situations where a party is liable for injuries no matter what precautions were taken.
In common law jurisdictions, a misrepresentation is a false or misleading statement of fact made during negotiations by one party to another, the statement then inducing that other party to enter into a contract. The misled party may normally rescind the contract, and sometimes may be awarded damages as well.
Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party, causing economic harm. As an example, someone could use blackmail to induce a contractor into breaking a contract; they could threaten a supplier to prevent them from supplying goods or services to another party; or they could obstruct someone's ability to honor a contract with a client by deliberately refusing to deliver necessary goods.
Personal injury is a legal term for an injury to the body, mind, or emotions, as opposed to an injury to property. In common law jurisdictions the term is most commonly used to refer to a type of tort lawsuit in which the person bringing the suit has suffered harm to their body or mind. Personal injury lawsuits are filed against the person or entity that caused the harm through negligence, gross negligence, reckless conduct, or intentional misconduct, and in some cases on the basis of strict liability. Different jurisdictions describe the damages in different ways, but damages typically include the injured person's medical bills, pain and suffering, and diminished quality of life.
In the English law of tort, professional negligence is a subset of the general rules on negligence to cover the situation in which the defendant has represented him or herself as having more than average skills and abilities. The usual rules rely on establishing that a duty of care is owed by the defendant to the claimant, and that the defendant is in breach of that duty. The standard test of breach is whether the defendant has matched the abilities of a reasonable person. But, by virtue of the services they offer and supply, professional people hold themselves out as having more than average abilities. This specialised set of rules determines the standards against which to measure the legal quality of the services actually delivered by those who claim to be among the best in their fields of expertise.
Causation in English law concerns the legal tests of remoteness, causation and foreseeability in the tort of negligence. It is also relevant for English criminal law and English contract law.
The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to tort law in common law jurisdictions:
Administrative liability in English law is an area of law concerning the tortious liability of public bodies in English law. The existence of private law tort applying to public bodies is a result of Diceyan constitutional theory suggesting that it would be unfair if a separate system of liability existing for government and officials. Therefore, a public body which acts ultra vires is liable in tort is a cause of action can be established just like any individual would be. An ultra vires action will not, per se, give rise to damages Therefore, a claimant will have to fit into one of the recognised private law courses of action. These areas in which a public body can incur private liability in tort were described by Lord Browne Wilkinson in X v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 3 All ER 353 (HL).
Limitation periods in Irish law are set out in a variety of statutes and in judicial decisions but primarily the limitations applying to civil actions are set out in the Statute of Limitations, 1957 and the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act, 1991. These statutes impose a limit on the right of action so that after a prescribed period any action will be time barred. A list of cause of actions affected are listed under part two of the Statute of Limitations 1957.
A v Hoare, [2008] UKHL 6, is a leading tort case in British law, decided by the House of Lords in 2008.
FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC[2014] UKSC 45 is a landmark decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court which holds that a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on trust for his principal. In so ruling, the Court partially overruled Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd in favour of The Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid (UKPC), a ruling from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from New Zealand.
The civil liability of a recreational diver may include a duty of care to another diver during a dive. Breach of this duty that is a proximate cause of injury or loss to the other diver may lead to civil litigation for damages in compensation for the injury or loss suffered.