Limitation of Actions
Law Commission Consultation Paper 151
Making the law on Civil Limitation Periods simpler and fairer
Summary
In its consultation paper published on 6 January 1998, the Law Commission examines the law on limitation of actions. A person with a civil claim (for example, for damages) will lose it if he or she does not sue within a specified period of time. Unfortunately the law on limitation periods is needlessly complex, outdated and, in some respects, unfair. A range of different regimes apply depending on the claim in question. This incoherence reflects the piecemeal development of the law since the seventeenth century. In this consultation paper we seek opinions on our provisional proposals for fundamentally modernising the law to render it simpler and fairer.
What is wrong with the present law?
The complexity and incoherence of the present law (which is contained in the Limitation Act 1980) is illustrated by the many different regimes which apply. For example:-
For deliberately caused personal injury, the limitation period is 6 years from the date of the injury.
For negligently caused personal injury, the limitation period is 3 years from the date the plaintiff discovered or ought to have discovered the injury but the court can extend time if it is just and equitable to do so.
For negligently caused property damage or economic loss, the limitation period is 3 years from the date the plaintiff discovered or ought to have discovered the damage or 6 years from the date of the damage, with a long-stop limitation period of 15 years from the date of the negligent conduct.
For libel, the limitation period is 1 year from the date of the publication but the courts can extend time if it is just and equitable to do so.
For breach of an ordinary contract, the limitation period is 6 years from the date of the breach.
For breach of a contract executed by deed, the limitation period is 12 years from the date of the breach.
A good example of the unfairness of the present law is shown by sexual abuse cases (see Stubbings v Webb [1993] AC 498, S v W [1995] FLR 862). Say, for example, Barbara was sexually abused by her uncle, Colin, from a young age until she was 14 years old. She is now 25 and suffers from a depressive illness and personality disorder. She has recently come to realise that her illness and disorder have been caused by Colins abuse. Because different rules apply to actions seeking compensation for deliberately caused injury, and negligently caused injury, her action against Colin will be time-barred (the limitation period being six years after she was 18). In contrast, an action against her mother for negligently failing to take reasonable steps to stop the abuse could be brought up to three years from the time Barbara learns that her illness is caused by the abuse, and the court could at its discretion allow her to bring an action outside that time limit. It seems absurd that a victim can be worse off as regards limitation by suing the person who has deliberately caused injury than the person who has negligently caused, or failed to prevent, the injury.
Our main provisional proposals
It is the Law Commissions provisional view that there needs to be a fundamental reform of the law on limitation periods. As far as possible, the same rules should apply whatever the legal claim. In the consultation paper, the Law Commission provisionally proposes a new limitations regime.
The central features of that new regime would be as follows:-
There would be an initial limitation period of three years that would start from the date the plaintiff discovers, or ought reasonably to discover, that he or she has a legal claim against the defendant.
There would be a "long-stop" limitation period of 10 years, or in personal injury claims of 30 years, running from the date of the act or omission of the defendant which gives rise to the plaintiffs claim. This would bar the plaintiffs claim where that period expires before the plaintiff discovers a potential claim.
The initial limitation period would be extended where the plaintiff was under a disability, that is, where the plaintiff lacks the capacity to make or communicate decisions or is under 18 (unless, possibly, there is a representative adult other than the defendant). Adult disability would not extend the long-stop limitation period (and we seek views as to whether minority should do so). Deliberate concealment by the defendant of facts relating to the plaintiffs claim would extend the long-stop. Acknowledgement by the defendant of the plaintiffs claim (or a part payment) should start time running again if made before the initial or long-stop limitation period has expired.
The courts would not have a discretion to extend (or disapply) a limitation period.
The consultation paper considers whether any modifications of this regime are needed for different types of legal claim.
Professor Andrew Burrows, Law Commissioner, said:
"The present law on limitation of actions is defective in many respects. We provisionally propose fundamental reforms to produce a law of limitations that is simple, fair, modern and cost-effective".
Further notes
1. The Law Commission was set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 to promote the reform of the law. The recommendations in its consultation papers are provisional, and the Commission consults widely before making its final recommendations.
2. This consultation closed on 21 April 1998.