S.28.4 Limitation Act

[CYNthesys]

Can someone please explain in simple terms the 30 year limitation period per s. 28.4 of Limitation Act

[charitynjw]

I'll have a go, Cynthesis.

The limitation period starts from the time when it is known [or a 'reasonable person' should have known] that a right of action exists. (ie you can take someone to court.)

“Cause of Action” has been defined as “every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgement of the Court”

Read v Brown (1888) 22 QBD 128 at 131. See also Central Electricity Generating Board v Halifax Corpn [1963] AC 785, at 800, 806


The limitation period is 30 years from that time for land, or money charged on land (ie a mortgage)

[CYNthesys]

Thanks, but still confused. My late husband lacked mental capacity, and all the actions I commenced against the Bank failed.Whilst they didn’t fail on Limitation, the Bank claimed they were out of time but the court decided otherwise as the actions had been commenced within the 6 year Limitation period. The bank had repossessed a freehold property belonging to my incapacitated husband, when he had no legally appointed attorney to manage his property and affairs

[charitynjw]

Thanks, but still confused. My late husband lacked mental capacity, and all the actions I commenced against the Bank failed.Whilst they didn’t fail on Limitation, the Bank claimed they were out of time but the court decided otherwise as the actions had been commenced within the 6 year Limitation period. The bank had repossessed a freehold property belonging to my incapacitated husband, when he had no legally appointed attorney to manage his property and affairs

I thought any action involving land, or interest in land, the limitation period is 12 yrs? (s15 LA 1980)

[CYNthesys]

Initially I thought 12 years as well, but when I couldn’t get a definitive answer off anyone I issued proceedings within 6 years to be on safe side. It’s still not clear to me re the 30 year time limit, do you think that would apply if all relevant info was withheld from a claimant. In response to a DSAR several years ago the Bank refused to disclose data that could possibly incriminate it at a later date. The Bank said that it would not be in a position to disclose info that may incriminate them

[charitynjw]

I believe 30 years from the *incident* is the absolute limit.

End of, after that.

[CYNthesys]

So, am I right in assuming that the 30 years time limit would apply from the date that the bank appointed receivers with instructions to take possession of and dispose of my husbands solely owned property

[lgfa92]

The standard limits in other sections of the Limitation Act would apply usually but s28 provides a time extension in some cases. Where a person was under a disability then the limitation period can be extended to 6 years past the point of their disability ceasing or their death. s28(4) simply caps the Limitation Act to 30 years as a maximum where land is involved.

[lgfa92]

So, am I right in assuming that the 30 years time limit would apply from the date that the bank appointed receivers with instructions to take possession of and dispose of my husbands solely owned property

30 years would be from the 'right of action' accrued as per s28(4). So that would seem to me to be 30 years from the original action taking place, rather than the 'cause of action'.

[charitynjw]

30 years would be from the 'right of action' accrued as per s28(4). So that would seem to me to be 30 years from the original action taking place, rather than the 'cause of action'.

The actual date of the 'right of action' is slippery beast to try & pin down.

[CYNthesys]

Think that’s what Im struggling with, must confess to being a bit lost on all this

[lgfa92]

The actual date of the 'right of action' is slippery beast to try & pin down.

It seems that the right to action is simply that, the point at which a person had the legal right to take action, whether or not a person was aware they could take action - each case would have it's own 'right to action' as various things need to take place to give them the right to take action. It would make sense when compared to the 'cause of action' which is where a person knows they have could have claim so the cause & right may or may not fall at the same time.

Think that’s what Im struggling with, must confess to being a bit lost on all this

Ultimately though what are you trying to achieve if a court has already ruled against you ? Are you thinking there is new evidence that was not available originally ? If so then you need to use a solicitor as you're getting in to the depths of legal argument.

[CYNthesys]

Any ideas on how I can ascertain the right of action in these circumstances

[lgfa92]

Any ideas on how I can ascertain the right of action in these circumstances

You would need a solicitor with experience of repossessions & appeals to look at the case as it seems your argument runs on pertinent information being withheld by the bank (it may well rest on exactly what this information is and how relevant it is). It may or may not alter the time limits but it's likely to need a lot of legal argument and work.

[CYNthesys]

Ok, thank you