DOCSLIB.ORG

Limitation Bill with Explanatory Notes 227

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Limitation Bill with Explanatory Notes 227 The Law Commission (LAW COM No 270) LIMITATION OF ACTIONS Item 2 of the Seventh Programme of Law Reform: Limitation of Actions Laid before Parliament by the Lord High Chancellor pursuant to section 3(2) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 9 July 2001 HC 23 The Law Commission was set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Carnwath CVO, Chairman Professor Hugh Beale Mr Charles Harpum Professor Martin Partington Judge Alan Wilkie QC The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. The terms of this report were agreed on 3 April 2001. The text of this report is available on the Internet at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The current law on limitation periods suffers from a number of problems. The Limitation Act 1980 makes different provision in respect of different causes of action. It is not always clear which category a cause of action falls into, and thus how it should be treated for limitation purposes. The date on which the limitation period starts to run does not always take account of the claimant’s knowledge of the relevant facts, leading in some cases to unfairness. In some cases the Act provides no protection to the claimant under a disability; in others, the protection given is too extensive, giving the claimant unlimited protection at the expense of the defendant even when the claimant has a representative who is fully aware of the relevant facts. Cases such as Brocklesbury v Armitage & Guest1 have shown that the provisions of the Act on deliberate concealment do not work well with the limitation regime applying to claims for latent damage other than personal injuries, and that they can penalise defendants who had no intention of concealing information from the claimant. In addition, the Act cannot readily be applied to new causes of action, such as claims for restitution. In this Report we recommend that these problems should be resolved by the introduction of a single, core limitation regime, which will apply, as far as possible, to all claims for a remedy for a wrong, claims for the enforcement of a right and claims for restitution. This regime will consist of: 1. A primary limitation period of three years starting from the date on which the claimant knows, or ought reasonably to know (a) the facts which give rise to the cause of action; (b) the identity of the defendant; and (c) if the claimant has suffered injury, loss or damage or the defendant has received a benefit, that the injury, loss, damage or benefit was significant. 2. A long-stop limitation period of 10 years, starting from the date of the accrual of the cause of action or (for those claims in tort where loss is an essential element of the cause of action, or claims for breach of statutory duty) from the date of the act or omission which gives rise to the cause of action (but for personal injuries claims see below). We recommend that the above core regime should apply without any qualification to the following actions: the majority of tort claims, contract claims, restitutionary claims, claims for breach of trust and related claims, claims on a judgment or arbitration award, and claims on a statute. The core regime will be modified in its application to claims in respect of personal injuries. The court should have a discretion to disapply the primary limitation period, and no long-stop limitation period will apply. All personal injury claims will be subject to this modified regime, whether the claim concerned is made in negligence or trespass to the person. We recommend that claims to recover land and related claims, though not subject to the core regime, should be subject to a limitation period of the same length as the long- stop limitation period, running from the date on which the cause of action accrues. 1 [2001] 1 All ER 172. iii We also recommend that the core regime should extend, but with some qualifications, to the following claims: claims under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934, the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 and the Consumer Protection Act 1987; claims for conversion; claims by a subsequent owner of damaged property; claims in relation to mortgages and charges; and claims under the Companies Act 1985 and in insolvency proceedings. Subject to a few exceptions, we do not propose to alter other specific limitation periods laid down in enactments other than the Limitation Act 1980. We further recommend that where the core regime applies to common law remedies for a cause of action, it should also apply to equitable remedies for that cause of action; but that delay may still bar a remedy before the limitation period under the core regime has expired. We recommend that the core regime should apply to all claims unless excluded by another provision of the proposed Bill (or any other enactment). During the claimant’s minority the initial limitation period should not run. The long- stop limitation period should run during minority, but not so as to bar an action before the claimant reaches the age of 21. Adult disability (including supervening disability) should suspend the initial limitation period, but will not affect the long-stop limitation period. However, the protection given to the adult claimant suffering from a disability will not be unlimited. Where the claimant under a disability has suffered personal injury (to which no long stop period will apply) and is in the care of a responsible adult ten years after the later of (a) the act or omission giving rise to the claim and (b) the onset of disability, the primary limitation period should run from the date the responsible adult knew or ought to have known the relevant facts unless the responsible adult is a defendant to the claim. The long-stop limitation period should not run where the defendant has concealed relevant facts, but only if the concealment was dishonest. Acknowledgments and part payments should start time running again, but not once the initial or long-stop limitation period has expired. The parties may agree that the limitation regime we recommend should not apply to disputes between them, or should only apply in modified form. They will not however be able to reduce the protection afforded by our provisions on concealment, minority or other disability nor to modify the application of the long-stop limitation period to claims under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. iv THE LAW COMMISSION LIMITATION OF ACTIONS CONTENTS Paragraph Page PART I: INTRODUCTION 1 1. THE SCOPE OF THIS REVIEW 1.1 1 2. PROBLEMS WITH THE CURRENT LAW 1.4 2 3. THE PROVISIONAL PROPOSALS IN OUR CONSULTATION PAPER 1.10 4 4. OUTLINE OF OUR MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS 1.12 4 5. THE STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT 1.21 7 PART II: AN OUTLINE OF THE PRESENT LAW 8 1. INTRODUCTION 2.1 8 2. CLAIMS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT 2.2 8 3. CLAIMS FOUNDED ON TORT 2.4 8 (1) General 2.4 8 (2) Claims for damages consisting of or including damages for personal injuries and related claims 2.9 11 (a) General 2.9 11 (i) Damages in respect of personal injuries to the claimant or any other person 2.14 12 (ii) Actual and constructive knowledge 2.19 14 (b) Claims in respect of personal injuries surviving under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 2.24 15 (3) Claims under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 2.25 15 (4) Latent damage (other than personal injury) in the tort of negligence 2.26 16 (5) Claims under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 2.35 19 (6) Claims for defamation and malicious falsehood 2.37 19 (7) Conversion 2.38 19 4. CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF TRUST PROPERTY 2.39 20 (1) Claims for breach of trust 2.39 20 (2) Claims in respect of the personal estate of a deceased person 2.46 22 5. CLAIMS FOR RESTITUTION 2.48 22 v Paragraph Page 6. CLAIMS TO RECOVER LAND AND RELATED CLAIMS 2.52 23 (1) Claims to recover land 2.52 23 (2) Claims to recover proceeds of the sale of land 2.60 25 (3) Claims to recover rent 2.61 25 7. CLAIMS IN RELATION TO MORTGAGES AND CHARGES 2.62 25 8. MISCELLANEOUS CLAIMS 2.67 26 (1) Claims on a judgment 2.67 26 (2) Arbitration 2.69 27 (3) Claims on a statute (including claims for contribution) 2.71 27 (a) Claims on a statute 2.71 27 (b) Claims for contribution under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 2.77 29 9. FACTORS POSTPONING THE RUNNING OF TIME 2.78 29 (1) Claimant under a disability 2.78 29 (2) Claim based on fraud 2.80 29 (3) Deliberate concealment 2.84 30 (4) Relief from the consequences of a mistake 2.89 32 (5) Acknowledgment and part payment 2.91 33 10. ADDITIONAL ISSUES 2.93 33 (1) What happens when time expires? 2.93 33 (2) What the claimant has to do to prevent the expiry of the limitation period 2.94 33 (3) Contracting out of, or waiving, the statutory limitation period 2.96 34 (4) Laches and acquiescence 2.97 34 (5) Application of the 1980 Act to equitable remedies by analogy 2.100 35 (6) Burden of proof 2.103 36 (7) The ‘Sevcon’ problem: restrictions on the claimant’s right to sue 2.104 36 (8) Adding new claims in existing proceedings 2.105 36 (9) Commencement and retrospectivity 2.114 38 PART III: REFORM I: THE CORE REGIME 40 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Part I Introduction
    PART I INTRODUCTION 1. WHY DOES THE PRESENT LAW NEED REFORM? 1.1 Our Sixth Programme of Law Reform1 recommended that “there should be a comprehensive review of the law on limitation periods with a view to its simplification and rationalisation.” We noted that the law is “uneven, uncertain and unnecessarily complex” as demonstrated by the following examples: (1) Adrian is injured when operating an unsafe electric mower. He seeks compensation for his injuries. If he sues the manufacturer in the tort of negligence, or the seller of the mower for breach of contract, he has three years from the date of the injury to bring his claim, subject to the courts’ discretion to extend time. If he sues the manufacturer under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (so as to avoid having to prove negligence) he has three years from the date of the injury to bring an action, subject to the court’s discretion to disapply the period; but his right of action under the 1987 Act is extinguished entirely if he does not sue within 10 years from when the mower was first bought. (2) Barbara was sexually abused by her uncle, Colin, from a young age until she was 14 years old. She is now 25 and suffers from a depressive illness and personality disorder. She has recently come to realise that her illness and disorder can be attributed to Colin’s abuse. But her action against Colin for trespass to the person will be time-barred (the limitation period being six years after she was 18).
    [Show full text]
  • Limitation Act 1980
    Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Limitation Act 1980. (See end of Document for details) Limitation Act 1980 1980 CHAPTER 58 An Act to consolidate the Limitation Acts 1939 to 1980. [13th November 1980] Modifications etc. (not altering text) C1 Act extended by Water Act 1981 (c. 12, SIF 130), s. 6(4) C2 Act amended (1.5.1994) by Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43, SIF 46:4), s. 73(9)(c); S.I. 1994/1096, art.2(1) Act amended (31.1.1997) by 1996 c. 23, s. 14(1) (with s. 81(2)); S.I. 1996/3146, art. 3 C3 Act modified (E.W.) (1.12.1991) by Water Industry Act 1991 (c. 56, SIF 130), ss. 209(4), 223(2) (with ss. 82(3), 186(1), 222(1), Sch. 14 para. 6) Act applied with modifications by Water Resources Act 1991 (c. 57, SIF 130), s. 208(4)(with ss. 16(6), 179, 222(3), 224(1), 225(4), Sch. 22 para. 1, Sch. 23 para.6) Act modified (27.4.1997) by 1925 c. 21, s. 83(12) (as substituted (27.4.1997) by 1997 c. 2, s. 2 (with s. 5(5))) C4 Act applied (31.1.1997) by 1996 c. 23, s. 13 (with s. 81(2)); S.I. 1996/3146, art. 3 Act modified (13.10.2003) by 2002 c. 9, ss. 103, 134, 136(2), Sch. 8 para. 8, Sch. 12 para. 19(1) (with s. 129); S.I. 2003/1725 {art. 2} C5 Act: 2004 c.
    [Show full text]
  • Lloyds TSB/HBOS Transaction Customers Will See Greater Continuity of HBOS Products, Services and Brands Than Would Otherwise Be the Case
    Anticipated acquisition by Lloyds TSB plc of HBOS plc Report to the Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform 24 October 2008 Contents I OVERVIEW ................................................................................................ 4 Conclusions ............................................................................................... 4 Merger jurisdiction ...................................................................................... 5 Substantive competition assessment ............................................................. 5 Remedies................................................................................................... 7 Public interest consideration ......................................................................... 7 II PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW ........................................................................... 8 III PARTIES AND TRANSACTION.....................................................................10 The parties................................................................................................10 Transaction rationale ..................................................................................10 IV JURISDICTION AND LEGAL TEST ................................................................11 V THE COUNTERFACTUAL ............................................................................13 Introduction to the OFT's general approach to the counterfactual.....................13 The appropriate counterfactual in this case ...................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Partnership Act 2004
    Civil Partnership Act 2004 CHAPTER 33 CONTENTS PART 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Civil partnership PART 2 CIVIL PARTNERSHIP: ENGLAND AND WALES CHAPTER 1 REGISTRATION Formation, eligibility and parental etc. consent 2 Formation of civil partnership by registration 3 Eligibility 4 Parental etc. consent where proposed civil partner under 18 Registration procedure: general 5 Types of pre-registration procedure 6 Place of registration 7 The civil partnership document The standard procedure 8 Notice of proposed civil partnership and declaration 9 Power to require evidence of name etc. 10 Proposed civil partnership to be publicised 11 Meaning of “the waiting period” 12 Power to shorten the waiting period ii Civil Partnership Act 2004 (c. 33) 13 Objection to proposed civil partnership 14 Issue of civil partnership schedule 15 Appeal against refusal to issue civil partnership schedule 16 Frivolous objections and representations: liability for costs etc. 17 Period during which registration may take place The procedures for house-bound and detained persons 18 House-bound persons 19 Detained persons Modified procedures for certain non-residents 20 Modified procedures for certain non-residents The special procedure 21 Notice of proposed civil partnership 22 Evidence to be produced 23 Application to be reported to Registrar General 24 Objection to issue of Registrar General’s licence 25 Issue of Registrar General’s licence 26 Frivolous objections: liability for costs 27 Period during which registration may take place Supplementary 28 Registration authorities 29
    [Show full text]
  • Discussion Paper on Damages for Wrongful Death
    Discussion Paper on Damages for Wrongful Death August 2007 DISCUSSION PAPER No 135 This Discussion Paper is published for comment and criticism and does not represent the final views of the Scottish Law Commission. EDINBURGH: The Stationery Office £18.00 NOTES 1. In accordance with our Publication Scheme, please note that (i) responses to this paper will be made available to third parties on request in paper form once the responses have been considered at a Commission meeting unless a respondent has asked for a response to be treated as confidential or the Commission considers that a response should be treated as confidential; (ii) subject to the following, any summary of responses to this paper will be made available to third parties on request in paper form once it has been considered at a Commission meeting: any summary will not be made available in relation to projects where the subject matter is considered by Commissioners to be of a sensitive nature; any summary being made available will not include reference to any response where either the respondent has asked for the response to be treated as confidential or the Commission considers that the response should be treated as confidential. Any request for information which is not available under the Commission’s Publication Scheme will be determined in accordance with the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. 2. Please note that some or all responses to this paper and the names of those who submitted them may be referred to and/or quoted in the final report following from this consultation or in other Commission publications and the names of all respondents to this paper will be listed in the relative final report unless the respondent specifically asks that, or the Commission considers that, the response or name, or any part of the response, should be treated as confidential.
    [Show full text]
  • The Canadian Legal Research and Writing Guide Formerly the Best Guide to Canadian Legal Research 2018 Canliidocs 161
    The Canadian Legal Research and Writing Guide Formerly the Best Guide to Canadian Legal Research 2018 CanLIIDocs 161 Edited by Melanie Bueckert, André Clair, Maryvon Côté, Yasmin Khan, and Mandy Ostick, based on work by Catherine Best, 2018 The Canadian Legal Research and Writing Guide is based on The Best Guide to Canadian Legal Research, An online legal research guide written and published by Catherine Best, which she started in 1998. The site grew out of Catherine’s experience teaching legal research and writing, and her conviction that a process-based analytical 2018 CanLIIDocs 161 approach was needed. She was also motivated to help researchers learn to effectively use electronic research tools. Catherine Best retired In 2015, and she generously donated the site to CanLII to use as our legal research site going forward. As Best explained: The world of legal research is dramatically different than it was in 1998. However, the site’s emphasis on research process and effective electronic research continues to fill a need. It will be fascinating to see what changes the next 15 years will bring. The text has been updated and expanded for this publication by a national editorial board of legal researchers: Melanie Bueckert legal research counsel with the Manitoba Court of Appeal in Winnipeg. She is the co-founder of the Manitoba Bar Association’s Legal Research Section, has written several legal textbooks, and is also a contributor to Slaw.ca. André Clair was a legal research officer with the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador between 2010 and 2013. He is now head of the Legal Services Division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.
    [Show full text]
  • House of Lords Official Report
    Vol. 805 Thursday No. 101 3 September 2020 PARLIAMENTARYDEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT ORDEROFBUSINESS Questions Aid Impact .....................................................................................................................437 Tree Planting ..................................................................................................................441 Folic Acid.......................................................................................................................444 Covid-19: Local Restrictions ..........................................................................................447 Covid-19 Statement........................................................................................................................451 Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 Motion to Approve ..........................................................................................................466 Representation of the People (Electoral Registers Publication Date) Regulations 2020 Motion to Approve ..........................................................................................................488 Mobile Homes (Requirement for Manager of Site to be Fit and Proper Person) (England) Regulations 2020 Motion to Approve ..........................................................................................................502 Channel Crossings in Small Boats Commons Urgent Question..............................................................................................515
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Partnership Bill [HL]
    Civil Partnership Bill [HL] The Bill is divided into two volumes. Volume I contains the Clauses. Volume II contains the Schedules to the Bill. EXPLANATORY NOTES Explanatory notes to the Bill, prepared by the Department of Trade and Industry, are published separately as Bill 132—EN. EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Ms Secretary Hewitt has made the following statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998: I am unable (but only because of clause 2, Schedule 1 and related provisions) to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Civil Partnership Bill [HL] are compatible with the Convention rights. However, the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Civil Partnership Bill [HL]. Bill 132 - I 53/3 Civil Partnership Bill [HL] (Volume I) The Bill is divided into two Volumes. Volume I contains the Clauses. Volume II contains the Schedules to the Bill. CONTENTS PART 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Civil partnership 2 Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples PART 2 CIVIL PARTNERSHIP: ENGLAND AND WALES CHAPTER 1 REGISTRATION Formation, eligibility and parental etc. consent 3 Formation of civil partnership by registration 4 Eligibility 5 Parental etc. consent where proposed civil partner under 18 Registration procedure: general 6 Types of pre-registration procedure 7 Place of registration 8 The civil partnership document The standard procedure 9 Notice of proposed civil partnership and declaration 10 Power to require evidence of name etc. 11 Proposed civil partnership to be publicised 12 Meaning of “the waiting period” 13 Power to shorten the waiting period 14 Objection to proposed civil partnership 15 Issue of civil partnership schedule 16 Appeal against refusal to issue civil partnership schedule 17 Frivolous objections and representations: liability for costs etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 2021 Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 2021
    Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 2021 of Foreign Enforcement Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 2021 Contributing editors Oliver Browne and Tom Watret © Law Business Research 2020 Publisher Tom Barnes [email protected] Subscriptions Claire Bagnall Enforcement of [email protected] Senior business development manager Adam Sargent Foreign Judgments [email protected] Published by Law Business Research Ltd Meridian House, 34-35 Farringdon Street 2021 London, EC4A 4HL, UK The information provided in this publication Contributing editors is general and may not apply in a specific situation. Legal advice should always Oliver Browne and Tom Watret be sought before taking any legal action based on the information provided. This Latham & Watkins information is not intended to create, nor does receipt of it constitute, a lawyer– client relationship. The publishers and authors accept no responsibility for any acts or omissions contained herein. The Lexology Getting The Deal Through is delighted to publish the tenth edition of Enforcement of information provided was verified between Foreign Judgments, which is available in print and online at www.lexology.com/gtdt. July and August 2020. Be advised that this Lexology Getting The Deal Through provides international expert analysis in key areas of is a developing area. law, practice and regulation for corporate counsel, cross-border legal practitioners, and company directors and officers. © Law Business Research Ltd 2020 Throughout this edition, and following the unique Lexology Getting The Deal Through format, No photocopying without a CLA licence. the same key questions are answered by leading practitioners in each of the jurisdictions featured. First published 2012 Our coverage this year includes new chapters on the Bahamas, Denmark and Greece.
    [Show full text]
  • Limitation Act 1980
    Status: Point in time view as at 01/02/1991. This version of this Act contains provisions that are not valid for this point in time. Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Limitation Act 1980. (See end of Document for details) Limitation Act 1980 1980 CHAPTER 58 An Act to consolidate the Limitation Acts 1939 to 1980. [13th November 1980] Modifications etc. (not altering text) C1 Act extended by Water Act 1981 (c. 12, SIF 130), s. 6(4) C2 Act amended (prosp.) by Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43, SIF 46:4), ss. 73(9)(c), 164(2)(3) PART I ORDINARY TIME LIMITS FOR DIFFERENT CLASSES OF ACTION Time limits under Part I subject to extension or exclusion under Part II 1 Time limits under Part I subject to extension or exclusion under Part II. (1) This Part of this Act gives the ordinary time limits for bringing actions of the various classes mentioned in the following provisions of this Part. (2) The ordinary time limits given in this Part of this Act are subject to extension or exclusion in accordance with the provisions of Part II of this Act. Actions founded on tort 2 Time limit for actions founded on tort. An action founded on tort shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. 2 Limitation Act 1980 (c. 58) Part I – Ordinary Time Limits for Different Classes of Action Document Generated: 2021-09-15 Status: Point in time view as at 01/02/1991.
    [Show full text]
  • Part I Introduction
    PART I INTRODUCTION 1.1 This is the seventh consultation paper in our “examination of the principles governing and the effectiveness of the present remedy of damages for monetary and non-monetary loss, with particular regard to personal injury litigation”.1 The current Fatal Accidents Act reached the statute book in 1976 and was substantially amended by the Administration of Justice Act 1982, which introduced a number of reforms based on the recommendations of the Law Commission2 and of the Pearson Commission.3 We were keen to consider once more damages for wrongful death because aspects of the present law remain controversial and difficult. For example, there is continuing controversy over damages for bereavement, which were made available for the first time in 1982.4 Other reforms introduced in 1982 have, in some respects, had more far-reaching effects than appear to have been intended.5 And there is continuing dissatisfaction over the statutory list of dependants, which many see as too restrictive.6 In addition to these areas of concern, this paper presents us with the opportunity to examine coherently and in depth an area of law which has developed in a piecemeal fashion with a view to eradicating any anomalies and inconsistencies that have been created. 1.2 In addition to a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act, an action can often be brought against the defendant by the personal representatives of the deceased for the benefit of the estate of the deceased under section 1 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934. Unlike the Fatal Accidents Act, the right of action of the estate is a survival of the action that the deceased would have had against the wrongdoer, and the action therefore survives irrespective of whether the death was caused by the wrong.
    [Show full text]
  • Limitation Act 1980
    Changes to legislation: There are outstanding changes not yet made by the legislation.gov.uk editorial team to Limitation Act 1980. Any changes that have already been made by the team appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. (See end of Document for details) DISCLAIMER: As Member States provide national legislations, hyperlinks and explanatory notes (if any), UNESCO does not guarantee their accuracy, nor their up-dating on this web site, and is not liable for any incorrect information. COPYRIGHT: All rights reserved.This information may be used only for research, educational, legal and non- commercial purposes, with acknowledgement of UNESCO Cultural Heritage Laws Database as the source (© UNESCO). Limitation Act 1980 1980 CHAPTER 58 An Act to consolidate the Limitation Acts 1939 to 1980. [13th November 1980] Annotations: Modifications etc. (not altering text) C1 Act extended by Water Act 1981 (c. 12, SIF 130), s. 6(4) C2 Act amended (1.5.1994) by Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43, SIF 46:4), s. 73(9)(c); S.I. 1994/1096, art.2(1) Act amended (31.1.1997) by 1996 c. 23, s. 14(1) (with s. 81(2)); S.I. 1996/3146, art. 3 C3 Act modified (E.W.) (1.12.1991) by Water Industry Act 1991 (c. 56, SIF 130), ss. 209(4), 223(2) (with ss. 82(3), 186(1), 222(1), Sch. 14 para. 6) Act applied with modifications by Water Resources Act 1991 (c. 57, SIF 130), s. 208(4)(with ss. 16(6), 179, 222(3), 224(1), 225(4), Sch.
    [Show full text]