system of proscription, once the time limits has passed, the claimant’s right of action no longer exist. For this reason, periods of prescription are longer than periods of limitation. Prescription - S3 limitation Act, which concerns w/ successive conversion (Conversion is a tort w/ interfering the chattel of the Claimant e.g. A stills B’s bicycle, that is an act of conversion, liability in conversion is strict, not based on fault, you can convert sb else’s property innocently, if there is successive conversion, each time there is a conversion/dealing, a new cause of action arises, time starts running again. However, s3 has the effect that time in future conversion claims run from the date of the 1 st conversion, in order to count whether time is running, after 6 years, expired, is prescriptive here ; in the case of theft, the thief can be sued at anytime, and anyone who has acquired the good in bad faith) / S17 for the recovery of land (when time limits, 12 year expired, title of the original owner of the land extinguish, another prescriptive rule) Limitation and `procedural' time limits Within the courts’ procedures, onve claim is started there are other time limits to conform to. The imitation period has a big impact on the way in which these procedural time limits operates, if a party fails to comply w/ a procedural time limit, the court may strike out the claimants case. If in the mean time, the limitation period of bringing a new claim on the same issue expired, then there is nothing left for C. Limitation and the law of procedure generally - commencement of the proceedings (Primary role of the proceedings) - service of the originating process (A claim form, 4 months from the date of issue of the proceeding) - amendment to join additional parties and claims (if C issues in time, but a bit latter, he wants to add a new D, under normal circumstances he can if he is still within the limitation period, subject to exceptions) - compliance with procedural time limits (striking out for want of prosecution) Rationale of the need for time limits - avoidance of stale claims Why need to have time limits? It is unfair to D, to defend themselves against very old claims. E.g. evidence is no longer available ; to give D some degree of certainties when they can be sued. In
reality, there is no such certainty. In common law, there is no time limits. 2 Limitation legislation Limitation Act 1623 Introduce the basic 6 years claim. Remained in force until 1939 Limitation Act 1939 Limitation Act 1963 Limitation Act 1975 Limitation Amendment Act 1980 Limitation Act 1980* Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984* Latent Damage Act 1986* Consumer Protection Act 1987* (Of the above statutes, only those marked with an asterisk are still in force. References hereafter to section numbers refer to the Limitation Act 1980 (as amended) unless the contrary is indicated). The Main question is - Whether the knowledge of the C to the cause of action relevant to the running of time? E.g. he is unaware that he has a cause of action does he have any effect on the time runs against him? Large dealing of claims that you do not know you have a disease, but at the same
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 15 pages?
- Fall '15
- The Lottery, Pleading, Personal injury, Statute of limitations, Limitation Act 1980