Assignment Submission

Student Name : B.PARIMELAZHAGAN

Student Code : 0903148/1

Course : BSc- level 3

Module : F304LAW – Construction LAW

Assignment : Question 3- Limitation Period

Page 1 of 4
Assignment-1
Question-3 Limitation Period

Limitation Period

Limitation Act 1980

Limitation Act 1980 provides time limit within which a party must bring a claim or give a notice to the other party.
Section 5 provides that, in simple contract an action for of breach of contract must be brought within six years of the
breach; Section 8 provides that in specialty contract the time limit is twelve years. The limitation time starts to run when
the cause of action arises/ accrues.

Section 2 provides that an action found on tort must be bought within six years from date on which cause of action
accrued. As established in the Pirelli General Cable Works v Oscar Faber & partner (1983) limitation period in tort
starts run when the damage is suffered irrespective of when the damage discovered. Possibly the damage may occur
some time after the breach also, hence limitation period in tort may be longer than contract. Therefore when plaintiff
suffered damage due to breach of contract after six or twelve years then the claim under contract is statute barred then
he can able bring a claim in Tort. In Abbott v Will Gannon & Smith Ltd (2005) Court held that claim was time barred in
contract however in Tort the claim was not time barred on basis of Pirelli as the damage is suffered only on 1999.
The limitation time stops running when the commencement proceeding started that is when the claim form is issued. In
arbitration, time stops when one party serves to other notice in writing, their intention to refer the dispute to arbitration.

Latent Damage Act 1986

In situations where the damage is not discoverable until it actually occurs, the Latent Damage Act 1986 provides
provisions to extend the limitation period.
Section 14A provides special time limit for negligence actions where facts relevant to cause of action are not known at
date of accrual. s.14A of the act apply to claims in Tort only.
It provides that an action for damages for negligence shall be brought within
a) six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued; or
b) three years from date on which the Claimant had both the knowledge required for bringing an action for
damages in respect of the relevant defects and a right to bring such an action.
Here “the knowledge required” means the material facts about the defects in respect of which damages are claimed. It
includes the knowledge which a person reasonably expected to acquire
a) from facts observable or ascertainable by him
b) from facts ascertainable with the help of experts which is reasonable
for him to seek.
In Spencer Ward v Humberts (1995) Claimant, after the expiry of limitation period (6 years) started action for
negligence against the valuers. Defendant argued claim was time barred. Claimant relying 14A argued that he did not
have sufficient knowledge about the material facts. Court rejected claimant argument stated that the ‘knowledge’ for
this purpose does not mean ‘know for certain and beyond the possibility of contradiction’. It means know with sufficient

Page 2 of 4
Assignment-1
Question-3 Limitation Period
confidence to embark on proceeding such as submitting the claim to defendant. Court considered the letter written by
the claimant to building society about the defects as ‘sufficient knowledge’.
In New Islington & Hackney Housing Association Ltd v Pollard Thomas & Edwards Ltd (2001), court concluded that
New Islington had all the relevant knowledge when they had obtained independent reports in respect of the defects,
accordingly, claim is time barred. In Hamlin v Edward Evans (1996) court states that the s.14 did not apply separate
limitation starting dates for three year period for different type of damages.

Section 14B provides extension of limitation period to 15 years from the date of negligence act which caused the
defects. This is the maximum period within which claimant should bring an action for damages for negligence, the
damage occurred or found after this period cannot be claimed except incase of fraud, concealment or mistake.

Fraud, Concealment or Mistake ( s.32)

Where any facts relevant to a claimant’s right of action has been deliberately concealed by the defendant, or where
there has been fraud or mistake, the limitation period does not begin to run until the claimant has discovered the
concealment, fraud or mistake or should with the reasonable diligence have discovered it.
In William Hill Organization v Bernard Sunley (1982) the test for deliberate concealment was described as "in all the
circumstances were the facts such that the conscience of the defendant ...... should have been so affected that it was
unconscionable to proceed with the works so as to cover up the defect without putting it right" that means claimant
should prove that the defendant’s conscience should have been affected.
In Cave v Robinson Jarvis & Rolf (2002) the House of Lords emphasized that breach of duty cannot be regarded as
‘deliberate concealment’ unless the person concerned is aware of that he is doing breach of duty. so where the breach
is negligent but inadvertent is not considered as deliberate concealment.

Subsequent Buyers
A subsequent buyer of the property has no contractual relationship with the contractor or designer therefore in respect
of any defects in the property the only remedy is action in tort against the contractor or designer.
Section 3 provides that a fresh cause of action negligence in respect of damage to the property will accrue, (as same
date upon which it accrue to the original owner) to a subsequent buyer against the party who caused the damage. If
the subsequent owner obtained the relevant ‘knowledge’ in respect of the defects later than the original owner, then he
may rely on extended time limit (three years) in accordance with s.14A.

Conclusion
Amended Limitation Act provides number of safeguards but to benefit from that, plaintiff should, reasonably try to
acquire the knowledge of the facts about the defects like seeking the expert’s advice; take measures to stop the
limitation period run against him by raising the claim as early as possible or referring to arbitration. Rely on s.14B ,
s.32 should be a last option, as it is difficult to prove.

Page 3 of 4
Assignment-1
Question-3 Limitation Period

Reference
J. Adriaanse (2006) Limitations of Actions: A Limited Defense, COBRA (2006), RICS, University College London.
Jhon Uff (2009), Construction Law, Sweet &Maxwell, London.
CEM (2009), Defect Liability, Paper 3722, Reading: The College of Estate
Management

Web Based
ISURV Defects and limitation periods, London : ISURV Available at:
www.isurv.com/site/scripts/documents_info.aspx?categoryID=328&documentID=2305&pageNumber=6.

Geoff Brewer (2001), Application of limitation periods in claims for breach of contract, and negligence, Brewer
consulting, London. Available at : www.brewerconsulting.co.uk/cases/CJ0108RR.htm

Limitation act 1980.Avilable at : www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/cp151apa.pdf

Referenced Cases
Abbott v Will Gannon & Smith Ltd (2005) EWCA Civ 198
Cave v Robinson Jarvis & Rolf [2002] A.C.384 W.L.R 1107
Hamlin v Edward Evans [1996]
New Islington & Hackney Housing Association Ltd v Pollard Thomas & Edwards Ltd [2001] B.L.R 74 L.R. 194
Pirelli General cable Works v Oscar Faber & partner [1983] 2 A.C. 1 ; W.L.R.6
Spencer Ward v Humberts [1995]
William Hill Organization v Bernard Sunley [1982]

Reference Statutes
Limitation act 1980.Avilable at : www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/cp151apa.pdf
Section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980
Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1980
Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980
Section 8 of the Limitation Act 1980
Section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 amended
Section 14B of the Limitation Act 1980 amended
Section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980
Section 28 of the Limitation Act 1980; Section 38 of the Limitation Act 1980

Page 4 of 4