Limitation Act 1980
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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). -
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. -
Cats and the Law: Research Report
Middlesex University Research Repository An open access repository of Middlesex University research http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk Nurse, Angus ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2486-4973 and Ryland, Diane (2013) Cats and the law: research report. Project Report. Middlesex University and University of Lincoln. [Monograph] Final accepted version (with author’s formatting) This version is available at: https://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/12968/ Copyright: Middlesex University Research Repository makes the University’s research available electronically. Copyright and moral rights to this work are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners unless otherwise stated. The work is supplied on the understanding that any use for commercial gain is strictly forbidden. A copy may be downloaded for personal, non-commercial, research or study without prior permission and without charge. Works, including theses and research projects, may not be reproduced in any format or medium, or extensive quotations taken from them, or their content changed in any way, without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). They may not be sold or exploited commercially in any format or medium without the prior written permission of the copyright holder(s). Full bibliographic details must be given when referring to, or quoting from full items including the author’s name, the title of the work, publication details where relevant (place, publisher, date), pag- ination, and for theses or dissertations the awarding institution, the degree type awarded, and the date of the award. If you believe that any material held in the repository infringes copyright law, please contact the Repository Team at Middlesex University via the following email address: [email protected] The item will be removed from the repository while any claim is being investigated. -
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. -
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 -
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. -
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. -
Effectiveness Study of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976
DEFRA RESEARCH CONTRACT: CR0246 June 2001 Effectiveness Study of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 A.G. Greenwood MA, VetMB, FIBiol, MRCVS P.A. Cusdin BSc.(Hons), GIBiol, VN M. Radford LLB* International Zoo Veterinary Group, Keighley Business Centre, South Street, Keighley, West Yorkshire BD21 1AG *University of Aberdeen, School of Law, Taylor Building, Old Aberdeen AB24 3UB Executive Summary The Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 was intended to regulate the keeping of certain kinds of dangerous wild animals in order to protect the public. This review was commissioned to determine the effectiveness of the Act, as currently administered, in achieving its aims. A major component of this review involved a questionnaire based survey of all 410 local authorities in England and Wales. Wide consultation with individuals and organisations with an interest in the Act was also carried out. Control of the Act was transferred in February 1980 from the Home Office to the Department of the Environment (now the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)). The Schedule to the Act has been modified on a number of occasions; most notably, in 1984, when the Department appeared to change its listing policy to include animals with the potential to be dangerous, without requiring their actual danger to be established. The 1984 Schedule is now considered by many respondents to be out of date; some of the animals included are not perceived to be dangerous by many animal keepers. There have been some changes to the taxonomy of listed animals, and these must be corrected in the Schedule to avoid legal dispute. -
The Original Fourth Amendment
Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2016 The Original Fourth Amendment Laura K. Donohue Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1616 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2726148 83 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1181 (2016) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Constitutional Law Commons The Original Fourth Amendment Laura K. Donohue† The meaning of the rights enshrined in the Constitution provides a critical baseline for understanding the limits of government action—perhaps nowhere more so than in regard to the Fourth Amendment. At the time it was adopted, the Fourth Amendment prohibited the government from entering into any home, warehouse, or place of business against the owner’s wishes to search for or to seize persons, papers, or effects, absent a specific warrant. Consistent with English common law, the nota- ble exception was when law enforcement or citizens were pursuing a known felon. Outside of such circumstances, search and seizure required government officials to approach a magistrate and, under oath, to provide evidence of the suspected offense and to particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized. Scholars’ insistence that the Fourth Amendment does not entail a general protection against government entry into the home without a warrant does more than just fail to appreciate the context. It contradicts the meaning of the text itself, which carefully lays out the conditions that must be met before the government may intrude. -
Bc Disease News a Weekly Disease Update
5 October 2020 Edition 314 BC DISEASE NEWS A WEEKLY DISEASE UPDATE CONTENTS PAGE 2 Welcome Welcome PAGE 3 Cohabitees of Deceaseds to Qualify Welcome to this week’s edition of BC Disease News. for Fatal Accident Bereavement Award from 6 October In this issue, there is a common theme of imminent/anticipated legislative and procedural reform, affecting UK jurisdictions. We report that the list of eligible PAGE 4 applicants for ‘bereavement’ damages will lengthen within days, that new costs management and disclosure requirements are now in effect, that the Ministry of 122nd UPDATE TO PRACTICE DIRECTIONS: Defence (MoD) is getting ever closer to contesting personal injury claims brought Novel Precedent T in Force to Facilitate ‘Variation Costs’, as Expert Witnesses 6-years after the ‘date of knowledge’ and that the recoupment of NHS charges Accede to Risk of Civil Contempt (for treating ‘industrial diseases’) from negligent employers could be off the cards, Proceedings in Rephrased Statement due to lack of incentive. of Truth We also announce the details of two significant claimant firm acquisitions; firstly PAGE 6 of Heptonstalls Solicitors, by HH Legal and secondly of Jigsaw Law, by Slater and Gordon. Proposed Legislation, Which Strengthens the MoD’s Position on Limitation in Military PI Claims, Survives Our final article of this issue examines the existence of a relationship between 2nd Reading in Commons permanent hair dye application and cancer, in lieu of a recently published paper, sourced in the British Medical Journal. We investigate whether or not the Faculty of Advocates Remarks that the supposed risks faced by personal users and workers are valid. -
LIMITATION of ACTIONS Law Com No 270
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS Law Com No 270 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 LIMITATION OF ACTIONS Law Com No 270 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. -
English Law Under Two Elizabeths Sir John Baker Frontmatter More Information
Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-83796-5 — English Law Under Two Elizabeths Sir John Baker Frontmatter More Information ENGLISH LAW UNDER TWO ELIZABETHS Comparative legal history is generally understood to involve the comparison of legal systems in different countries. This is an experiment in a different kind of comparison. The legal world of the first Elizabethans is separated from that of today by nearly half a millennium. But the past is not a wholly different country. The common law is still, in an organic sense, the same common law as it was in Tudor times and Parliament is legally the same Parliament. The concerns of Tudor lawyers turn out to resonate with those of the present and this book concentrates on three of them: access to justice, in terms of both cost and public awareness; the respective roles of common law and legislation; and the means of protecting the rule of law through the courts. Central to the story is the development of judicial review in the time of Elizabeth I. sir john baker is Emeritus Downing Professor of the Laws of England, University of Cambridge. His recent publications include The Reinvention of Magna Carta 1216–1616 (Cambridge, 2017) and Collected Papers on English Legal History (Cambridge, 2013). © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-83796-5 — English Law Under Two Elizabeths Sir John Baker Frontmatter More Information © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-83796-5 — English