• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum. Please register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
  • Please note that LegalBeagles is a public forum and the main areas are accessible to all, and as such, please take care your username or posts do not identify you. There is no need to post claim numbers, names or precise amounts to get support with your case. When uploading documents please ensure that you have properly redacted your personal details. Thank you.

The PRA case, BMW v Hart, and Statute Barring

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The PRA case, BMW v Hart, and Statute Barring

    On the recent case which we won against the PRA Group (UK) limited, we asked the Court to try a preliminary issue. The issue, which the Court agreed to hear was 1) Had limitation expired before the Claim was issued and: 2) If the answer to 1 was no, then has the creditor complied with […]


    More...
    I work for Wannops LLP . I give my free time available to helping other on the forum and would be happy to try and assist informally where needed. Any posts I make on LegalBeagles are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as legal advice. Any advice I provide is without liability.

    If you need to contact me please email me on Ptilley@wannops.com . My firms initial advice is always free.

    I have been involved in leading consumer credit and data protection cases including Harrison v Link Financial Limited (High Court), Grace v Blackhorse (Court of Appeal) and also Kotecha v Phoenix Recoveries (Court of Appeal) along with a number of other reported cases and often blog about all things consumer law orientated.

    You can also follow my blog on consumer credit here.
    Tags: None

  • #2
    Re: The PRA case, BMW v Hart, and Statute Barring

    Well at least a case is on record, but I always thought this was the case. I see you relied on Swansea CC but a few other cases that also highlight the same point, not sure if they were used but apologies if they have (but perhaps reference for others).

    Coburn v Colledge - Court of Appeal 1897 as per Lord Esher

    The Statute of Limitations itself does not affect the right to payment, but only affects the procedure for enforcing it in the event of dispute or refusal to pay. Similarly, I think s. 37 of the Solicitors Act, 1843 , deals, not with the right of the solicitor, but with the procedure to enforce that right. It does not provide that no solicitor shall have any cause of action in respect of his costs or any right to be paid till the expiration of a month from his delivering a signed bill of costs, but merely that he shall not commence or maintain any action for the recovery of fees, charges, or disbursements until then. It assumes that he has a right to be paid the fees, charges, and disbursements, but provides that he shall not bring an action to enforce that right until certain preliminary requirements have been satisfied.
    Sevcon v Ltd v Lucas - House of Lords 1986 as per Lord Mackay
    However, the true principle as illustrated in the cases to which I have referred is that time runs generally when a cause of action accrues and that bars to enforcement of accrued causes of action which are merely procedural do not prevent the running of time unless they are covered by one of the exceptions provided in the Limitation Act itself.
    Legal Services Commission v Rasool - Court of Appeal 2008 as per LJ Ward
    In my judgment the fact that declaratory relief is available demonstrates to me that the process of ascertainment of the amount of costs is a mere procedural requirement, not an inherent element of the cause of action itself ...

    The purpose of the Limitation Act 1980 is to prevent delay. That would be utterly frustrated if Mr Jay's submission is correct. On his working of the scheme, actual taxation or assessment could take place long after revocation. The assisted person would have no control over that taxation and tardy solicitors could delay indefinitely. The delay that has occurred in this case, and in others dependent on the outcome of this appeal, reveals how endemic delays of one sort or another may be. There would be no certainty for the assisted party as to when he might be called upon to pay the claimant. The claim may have become very stale indeed. I prefer a construction of regulation 86(1) which leaves everybody knowing exactly where they stand so that the period of limitation can be ascertained with certainty.
    Click here to check out my list of templates

    DISCLAIMER: ANYTHING I POST ON THIS FORUM SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS GIVING LEGAL ADVICE. I DO NOT ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY NOR DO I ACCEPT ANY LIABILITY AND THE USE OF MY CONTENT FOR YOUR OWN PURPOSE IS SOLELY AT YOUR OWN RISK. YOU SHOULD ALWAYS SEEK INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE BY GOING TO THE LAW SOCIETY'S FIND A SOLICITOR OR CONTACT YOUR LOCAL CITIZEN'S ADVICE BUREAU.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The PRA case, BMW v Hart, and Statute Barring

      I think all them cases were referred to in the Judgment. Im just reading through it at the minute but there have been at least two references to Lord Eshers judgment already.
      I work for Wannops LLP . I give my free time available to helping other on the forum and would be happy to try and assist informally where needed. Any posts I make on LegalBeagles are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as legal advice. Any advice I provide is without liability.

      If you need to contact me please email me on Ptilley@wannops.com . My firms initial advice is always free.

      I have been involved in leading consumer credit and data protection cases including Harrison v Link Financial Limited (High Court), Grace v Blackhorse (Court of Appeal) and also Kotecha v Phoenix Recoveries (Court of Appeal) along with a number of other reported cases and often blog about all things consumer law orientated.

      You can also follow my blog on consumer credit here.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The PRA case, BMW v Hart, and Statute Barring

        For information - the Judgment

        http://legalbeagles.info/forums/show...563#post738563
        “We may not win by protesting, but if we don’t protest we will lose. If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.” Hetty Bower

        Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

        If we have helped you we'd appreciate it if you can leave a review on our Trust Pilot page

        Find Solicitors offering fixed fees on our sister site - JustBeagle.com

        Comment

        View our Terms and Conditions

        LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

        If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


        If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.

        Announcement

        Collapse
        No announcement yet.
        Loading...

        upgrade to vip

        Want exclusive access to forums, more privacy and a live chat box? Upgrade to become a bigger part of our community.

        only £15/yr

        Offers available. No subscription traps.

        sign up now



        Search and Compare fixed fee legal services and find a solicitor near you.

        Find a Law Firm


        Working...
        X