The Bar Training Course

Full Time 2022/2023

College of Business and Law

____________________________________________________

CIVIL LITIGATION AND EVIDENCE

SGS 8

Limitation
ANSWERS TO MCQ – SBA

____________________________________________________

UWE, Bristol Law School

UWE, Bristol Law School The Bar Training Course

TASK 3 - MULTIPLE CHOICE /SINGLE BEST ANSWER QUESTIONS

1.On Rashid’s fifteenth birthday, 25 July 2021, he had an accident when he fell off a horse
at his riding school. The horse bucked when a horse trainer burst a balloon and the noise
scared the horse. Rashid was thrown to the ground. He felt some pain but did not see a
doctor immediately as he was going on holiday with his family the next day and didn’t want
anything to spoil it.

On return from the holiday on 15 August 2021, Rashid went to see a doctor and explained
that he was in pain from falling off the horse almost 3 weeks previously. The Doctor
examined Rashid and confirmed that he had fractured his pelvis and would have to rest for
3 – 6 months and may not be able to horse ride again.

Rashid wants to commence proceedings against the Riding School, and you are asked to
advise which is the latest date by which the claim must be brought.

[A] 25 July 2024

[B] 24 July 2027

[C] 15 August 2024

[D] 15 August 2027

B is the correct answer -24 July 2027. Rashid was 15 (and therefore under a disability) at
the time of the accident and so limitation will not run until his 18 th Birthday (25 July 2024)
(s 28 of the Limitation Act). As it is a PI claim, 3 years will be the appropriate time, and so
proceedings should be brought by midnight on 24 July 2027.

2.In August 2021, Osark plc (Osark) brought a claim against Temple Limited (Temple) for
damage to his property caused by construction works carried out by Temple. Temple
claimed that the damage was not caused by them but was pre-existing damage, but further
or alternatively, if Temple was found to be liable in any way to Osark, it was entitled to
claim a contribution from its subcontractor, Mathers Mates (Mathers), in relation to work
that they carried out on Ozark’s property in May 2020.

After a trial in March 2022, judgment was awarded to Osark in the sum of £ 340,000.
Temple appealed. On the appeal, heard in November 2022, the court upheld Osark’s
judgment but varied the damages to £ 260,000.

When did the limitation period start to run in relation to any contribution claim which might
be brought by Temple against Mathers?

[A]May 2020

[B] August 2021

[C] March 2022

[D] November 2022

2 UWE, Bristol Law School

UWE, Bristol Law School The Bar Training Course

C is the correct answer. The limitation period will start to run from March 2022 in relation to
any contribution claim which might be brought by Temple against Mathers as according to s
10 (1) – (3) of the Limitation Act 1980, the limitation period will start to run from the date of
the judgment being given in any civil proceedings and note that the section goes on to state
that “ For the purposes of this subsection no account shall be taken of any judgment or
award given or made on appeal in so far as it varies the amount of damages awarded
against the person in question“ .

Note to tutors – there is a new unseen question testing section 10 if the Limitation Act but
on a slightly different point – namely – the fact pattern does not give a date of a judgment,
but the claim is settled, and an amount is agreed to be paid – note the wording of s 10(4)
and take the students to this

“If in any case not within subsection (3) above, the person in question makes or agrees to
make a payment to one or more persons in compensation for that damage (whether he
admits the liability or not) the relevant date shall be the earliest date on which the amount
to be paid is agreed…”

3. Which one of the following statements purporting to relate to limitation is correct?

[A] An action may not be brought upon any judgment after the expiry of two years from the
date on which the judgment became enforceable.

[B] Where any fact relevant to a claimant’s cause of action has been deliberately concealed
from him by the defendant, the limitation period shall not begin to run until the claimant has
discovered, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered, the mistake.

[C] In contract claims the cause of action accrues always from the date when payment for
the subject matter of the claim falls due.

[D] Under the Latent Damages Act 1986, the “starting date” is defined in its entirety as
when the claimant knew that the relevant damage was sufficiently serious to justify
commencing proceedings.

The correct answer is B (see Limitation Act 1980, s32 (1)(b). Note that this provision also
applies where an action is based on fraud by the defendant or an action for relief from the
consequences of a mistake. A is wrong as an action may not be brought upon any judgment
after the expiry of six years from the date on which the judgment became enforceable (and
not two years as mentioned in the statement – see s 24 of the LA 1980 –). C is wrong as
the accrual of the cause of action in a contract claim will differ depending on the nature of
the obligation sued on and the terms of the contract and so the reference to the fact that
the cause of action ”always” accrues when the payment is due is wrong); D is wrong as it
provides only part of the definition for the “start date”; in addition to the claimant
knowing that the relevant damage was sufficiently serious to justify commencing
proceedings, the claimant would have to know in addition, that the damage was due to the
act or omission of the defendant and would also need to know the identity of the defendant
– all of those factors need to be present before the “ start date” kicks in.

3 UWE, Bristol Law School

UWE, Bristol Law School The Bar Training Course

4. Victoria suffered a serious head injury when she was involved in a motorcycle accident,
on her 20th birthday, which was on 18 December 2019. The injuries were so severe that
Victoria was under a disability until May 2020. In March 2020, Victoria’s accountants
transferred funds out of one of her accounts, without her permission. In doing so, they
deliberately concealed the fact from Victoria, such that she could not with reasonable
diligence have discovered that the transfer had occurred until November 2020.

Victoria wants to commence proceedings against her accountants for breach of contract and
asks by when the claim must be brought to ensure that it is not statute barred.
Which one of the following is the correct advice to give in the circumstances?

[A] Proceedings must be commenced by November 2026

[B] Proceedings must be commenced by May 2026

[C] Proceedings must be commenced by March 2026

[D] Proceedings must be commenced by March 2023

A is the correct answer. We are told on the facts that there has been deliberate concealment
and time does not run until the claimant has discovered the concealment or could, with
reasonable diligence have discovered the concealment (see section 32 LA 1980). Victoria
would then have 6 years from that date to bring the claim in contract or tort (and we are
told on these facts that the claim will be for breach of contract s. 5 of the LA 1980). B is
wrong as that would mean that time ran from when Victoria was no longer under a disability
and does not take account of the deliberate concealment under s 32 of the LA 1980; C is
wrong, as this is 6 years from the breach of contract (section 5 of the LA 1980) but again
fails to take account of the concealment and D is wrong as it is 3 years from the breach of
contract (instead of 6 – which would be applicable for a breach of contract case) and fails to
take account of the concealment.

5. You are advising as at December 2022. In September 2015 Marissa had a new roof built
and laid. In October 2022 it started leaking. Marissa has instructed a surveyor who has
established that the cracks would have appeared in or around December 2015 shortly after
the roof was constructed as the design of the roof was flawed, and inappropriate building
materials had been used. Marissa had not become aware of the problem until the recent
heavy and constant downpours began to cause real damp problems inside the house.

Marissa wants to sue the architect and builder who originally designed and constructed the
roof in September 2015. What is the most appropriate advice to give her?

[A] Marissa is unable to sue the architect and builder as her only cause of action is breach of
contract, and as such the claim is statute-barred.

[B] Marissa can commence proceedings against the architect and the builder, but as the
breach of contract accrued more than 6 years ago, when the roof was constructed, Marissa
will need to make an application to disapply the primary limitation period under s 33 of the
Limitation Act 1980.

4 UWE, Bristol Law School

UWE, Bristol Law School The Bar Training Course

[C] Marissa is within time to commence proceedings under the Latent Damage Act 1986 as
she did not have the required knowledge to commence proceedings until 2 months ago.

[D] Whilst Marissa did not have the required knowledge to commence proceedings until 2
months ago, she is statute barred as the long stop date has passed pursuant to s14 B of the
Latent Damage Act 1986.

C is the correct answer. Marissa is within time to commence proceedings under the Latent
Damage Act 1986 as she did not have the required knowledge to commence proceedings
until 2 months ago. D is wrong as the long stop date under s 14 (B) is 15 years from the
accrual of the cause of action and that time has not expired on these facts. Marissa can sue
in negligence and is not limited to suing in contract (and so A and B are wrong)

We have discussed the fact that the normal 6-year rule applies in tort claims. Liability in tort
can only be established on proof of damage.

Usually, damage is the final matter to come into existence, so the usual rule is that time
runs in tort from when the damage is “sustained”. The important date is when damage was
sustained, not the date on which the Claimant discovered the damage.

We are told that “serious” cracks begin to appear in or around December 2015 shortly after
the roof was constructed and so it would seem that arguably we may be out of time to sue
the architect and builder on this first limb, but the Marissa would still be in time to
commence proceedings as under the Latent Damage Act 1986 (inserted at ss 14A and B
of the LA 1980) as, in addition to the 6 year period within which a claim should be
commenced, there is the alternative time of 3 years from the “starting date” – which is
the earliest date that the claimant ( Marissa) knew

“(a) that the relevant damage was sufficiently serious to justify commencing proceedings;
(b) that the damage was attributable to the alleged negligence; and
(c) the defendant’s identity”.

S 14 A and B of the Latent Damage Act apply to actions for negligence other than personal
injuries (S 14 A (1)) and are restricted to claims in tort (not extending to contractual
negligence claims).

Marissa could therefore argue in the alternative that, if the court are to accept that they are
out of time on the 6-year rule that they will still be in time under s 14 A – the alternative
time of 3 years from the starting date. This would be on the basis that the “start date” only
kicked in 2 months ago when the real issues with damp started occurring in the house and
alerted Marissa to the problems with the chimney which had occurred more than 6 years
ago.

You will note that the concepts of the “starting date” are similar to those of “knowledge” in
PI claims.
To prevent a defendant from being perpetually at risk, however, please note that there is a
long stop/ overriding time limit for bringing proceedings- which is 15 years from the act or
omission alleged to constitute the negligence causing the claimant’s damage (s 14 B
Limitation Act). On our facts, the long stop date would expire in 8 years’ time (hence D is
wrong).

5 UWE, Bristol Law School

UWE, Bristol Law School The Bar Training Course

6.You act for Boris. On 11 July 2019, Boris suffered personal injuries whilst scuba-diving and
grouting a deep swimming pool during the course of his employment.

On 28 October 2020, you advised Boris, who attended a conference with his daughter
Theresa, that he had a claim against his employer, as it seemed that the injuries had
occurred due to a failure in the diving tanks provided by Boris‘s employer (Ricky). Boris
wrote to you in November 2020 stating that he would be in contact in the New Year about
commencing the proceedings. Unfortunately, over the Christmas period, on 24 December
2020, Boris died in an unrelated car accident.

Boris ‘s daughter, Theresa, was the sole executor and personal representative of Boris’
estate and received the grant of probate on 15 May 2022. It is now 25 October 2023.

Theresa wishes to bring a claim against Ricky for the benefit of Boris’s estate but seeks your
advice as to whether she is now too late to do so.

What is the correct advice to give Theresa as to whether the claim is statute barred?

[A] The claim is not statute barred but must be issued without delay as a limitation period
will expire on 27 October 2023, three years from Theresa ‘s date of knowledge.

[B] The claim is statute barred as the limitation period expired in July 2022.

[C] The claim is not statute barred. The limitation period will not expire until three years
after the grant of probate

[D] The claim is not statute barred. The limitation period expires 3 years from 24 December
2020.

D is a correct answer. Section 11(4) of the Limitation Act 1980 is subject to section 11(5)
which states that where the injured died within that initial three-year period, then the
limitation period is “three years from (a) the date of death; or (b) the date of the personal
representative’s knowledge; whichever is the later “. Theresa ‘s date of knowledge is 28
October 2020 but Boris ‘s death (24 December 2020) is later.

Therefore, the limitation period on these facts runs from the date of Boris ‘s death –24
December 2020 and will therefore expire three years from that date –24 December 2023
and therefore D is the correct answer.

7. On 28 February 2018 Jamie was knocked unconscious by a vehicle travelling at excessive

speed whilst crossing the High Street in Corbridge. He suffered head injuries and had 6
months off work. The driver failed to stop. While Jamie knew he was hit by a vehicle he
cannot remember anything about the vehicle. In August 2019, Vardy approached Jamie in
the High Street and said that he had witnessed the accident and had felt guilty about not
coming forward sooner. He identified the driver and identified the vehicle as one owned by
the Corbridge Gazette, a local newspaper. The driver was employed by the Corbridge
Gazette. In June 2020 Jamie consulted your instructing solicitors who advised that he had a
case in negligence against the Corbridge Gazette. The person dealing with the case at that
time noted that the accident occurred “in February”. That person has since left the firm, and
in error the person taking over the file thought that the accident had occurred in February

6 UWE, Bristol Law School

UWE, Bristol Law School The Bar Training Course

2020. By the time the mistake had been realised some time had passed and so rather than
apply the pre-action protocol, a claim form was issued in November 2022. The Corbridge
Gazette has filed a defence relying on the Limitation Act 1980. You have been asked to
advise Jamie on whether his claim has been brought within time.

What is the most appropriate advice to give Jamie in the circumstances?

[A] The limitation period is 3 years from the date of the accident so by November 2022 it
was too late to issue the claim form.

[B] The limitation period began to run when Jamie discovered the identity of the defendant
in August 2019, so the claim form was issued 3 months late.

[C] The limitation period started to run in June 2020 when Jamie consulted his solicitors and
was advised that he had a cause of action against the defendant, so the claim form was
issued in time.

[D] Although the limitation period is 3 years from the date of the accident, the error made
by the instructing solicitors would amount to a good reason for extending the limitation
period under the Limitation Act 1980.

ANSWER B is the most appropriate advice to give. Answer A is wrong as personal

injury proceedings need to be brought within 3 years of the date of the accident or, if later,
3 years from the date of the persons knowledge (LA 1980, S 11(4)).” Knowledge” is defined
under S. 14(1) of the Limitation Act 1980, and all of the relevant factors were satisfied as at
August 2019 when Jamie became aware of the identity of the Defendant. Consequently, his
Claim Form was arguably 3 months late so B is correct. The dates as to when the Claimant
instructed solicitors (mentioned in C) and the potential negligence of the solicitors
(mentioned in D), are relevant factors to be considered when exercising discretion under s
33 of the Limitation Act 1980 (when deciding to disapply the limitation period) but the
former is not the time from when the limitation period starts to run and the latter is not, in
itself, a reason to extend the limitation period. Consequently, C and D are wrong.

UNSEEN QUESTIONS

1.Lubna has brought a claim against Rahim for breach of contract. The limitation period
expired on 10 February 2022. Rahim did not receive the claim form in the post until
Thursday 24 February 2022.There was a post mark on the envelope dated 21 February 2022
although the claim form had been issued by the court on Thursday 10 February 2022.
Lubna’s solicitors’ evidence that they sent the claim form with covering letter by registered
post to the court office on 2 February (a Wednesday) and that the letter was date stamped
as having been received by the court on 4 February (a Friday).

Rahim asks your advice and reasons as to whether the claim has been issued within the
limitation period. Which of the following is correct?

7 UWE, Bristol Law School

UWE, Bristol Law School The Bar Training Course

[A] Lubna’s claim is in time because it was received by the court within the limitation period.

[B] Lubna’s claim is in time because it was deemed to be served on the second business day
after the claim form was sent to the court by Lubna’s solicitors and so was deemed to have
been served on 4 February, within the limitation period.

[C] Lubna’s claim is out of time, as it was issued after the limitation period.

[D] Lubna’s claim is out of time because it was served on Rahim after the expiry of the
limitation period.

A is the correct answer. For the purposes of limitation, time will stop running when the claim
is “brought”. This does not necessarily mean when the claim is issued, although this is the
best evidence that the claim has been brought, a letter requesting the court to issue the
claim form will be sufficient if it is date stamped- even if the court does not issue until the
next day (PD 7 A, para 5.1 and 5.2). B, C and D are therefore wrong. This answer can also
be found in the commentary added to the syllabus this year at 8-3.2 on page 2334 of the
White book and so it is worth the students noting this.

2.On 17 March 2021, Nisirat had a jaw realignment operation at Lambert Dental Hospital
owned and operated by Lambert PLC (“Lambert”). The operation was not as successful as
hoped and Nisirat claims that Lambert was negligent in its performance of the operation.
The operation was carried out by a dental surgeon employed by Lambert, who used
equipment (“the equipment”) manufactured by Maxifax Limited during the procedure.
Lambert believes that the dental surgeon carried out the operation negligently but that the
equipment was also defective.

On 18 September 2021, Nisirat commenced proceedings in negligence against Lambert. On

4 September 2022, Lambert admitted liability with damages to be agreed. On 6 October
2022, Lambert’s representatives agreed to pay a sum of £425,000 in full and final
settlement of Nisirat’s damages. The sum was paid on 20 October 2022.

What is the latest date by when Lambert can make a claim against Maxifax Limited to
recover a contribution in respect of the compensation it has paid to Nisirat?

[A] 17 March 2024

[B] 6 October 2024
[C] 20 October 2024
[D] 4 September 2025

B is the correct answer - 6 October 2024. Limitation Act 1980 ss.10(1) and (4) (White
Book 2022 Vol 2, p 2339). The relevant date is the earliest date on which the amount to be
paid by Lambert is agreed between Lambert and Nisirat. A is wrong. That would have been
the limitation date for Nisirat’s claim against Lambert/the surgeon but is not relevant to the
contribution claim. C is wrong as it suggests that the 2-year period for a contribution claim
runs from the date of payment whereas it runs from the date of agreement (further
explained at para 3 of 8 –22 – White Book Vol 2 2022, page 2340- not in the BSB reading

8 UWE, Bristol Law School

UWE, Bristol Law School The Bar Training Course

but assists in interpreting LA S 10 - which is). D is wrong as it takes the date of the
admission of liability rather than the agreement as to quantum as the starting point (S.10(4)
LA 1980); and it also applies a 3-year period rather than the 2-year period provided by S.10
LA (S.10(1) LA 1980).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

9 UWE, Bristol Law School