Creggy v Barnett & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 1004 (11 October 2016)

Creggy v Barnett & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 1004 (11 October 2016)

The Court of Appeal held that the claim for equitable compensation for breach of fiduciary duty in this case was not a 'liquidated pecuniary claim' within the meaning of s.29(5) of the Limitation Act 1980. Therefore, the letter relied upon by the respondents did not operate as an acknowledgment to restart the limitation period, and the claim was statute-barred.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 1004
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Stuart Creggy; Respondent/claimant: Jeffrey Barnett; Respondent/claimant: Peter Barnett
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Equitable Compensation, Limitation Act 1980, Acknowledgement of Debt, Reflective Loss, Trustee Liability
Equity Trusts and Trustees Limitation of Actions Breach of Fiduciary Duty Equitable Compensation Limitation Act 1980 Acknowledgement of Debt Reflective Loss +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stuart Creggy

Appellant/defendant

Jeffrey Barnett

Respondent/claimant

Peter Barnett

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a claim for equitable compensation for breach of fiduciary duty is a 'liquidated pecuniary claim' under s.29(5) of the Limitation Act 1980 for the purpose of acknowledgment and limitation period extension.
  2. 2 Whether a letter written by the defendant constituted an acknowledgment of the claim for the purposes of s.29(5) of the Limitation Act 1980.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the claim for equitable compensation for breach of fiduciary duty in this case was not a 'liquidated pecuniary claim' within the meaning of s.29(5) of the Limitation Act 1980. Therefore, the letter relied upon by the respondents did not operate as an acknowledgment to restart the limitation period, and the claim was statute-barred.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court requiring payment of US$2,305,795.68 set aside as statute-barred.
  • No account ordered against Mr Creggy for payments before July 1998.