Judgment from the House of Lords is awaited in an appeal against last year’s Court of Appeal decision in Cave v. Robinson Jarvis & Rolf [2002] 1 WLR581. The appeal, heard on 28 February, involved the interpretation of section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, insofar as it relates to deliberate concealment of facts. The appeal is in effect also an appeal against the Court of Appeal decision in Brocklesby v. Armitage and Guest [2001] 1 All ER 172.
In brief, the Court of Appeal decisions have had the result that the limitation period would be extended if there has been a deliberate concealment of facts by the defendant, including the deliberate commission of a breach of duty which is unlikely to be discovered for some time, where the act or omission by the defendant was intentional, regardless of whether the defendant appreciated that it was a breach of duty. Therefore the limitation period could be extended even where there was no impropriety on the part of the defendant.
These decisions have been subject to criticism by numerous commentators and the view appears to be generally held that the decision in Cave, in particular, is surprisingly wide. If it is not overturned by the Lords, there will be wide ramifications for professionals who could be sued for negligence many years after the relevant events. The Lords’ decision will be covered in a future issue of Financial Institutions Litigation News.
© Herbert Smith 2002
The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
For more information on this or other Herbert Smith publications, please email us.
