The PRA case, BMW v Hart, and Statute Barring

[pt2537]

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...

[R0b]

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.

[pt2537]

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.

[Amethyst]

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

For information - the Judgment

http://legalbeagles.info/forums/show...563#post738563