Bradford & Bingley Plc v Rashid [2005] EWCA Civ 1080 (22 July 2005)

Bradford & Bingley Plc v Rashid [2005] EWCA Civ 1080 (22 July 2005)

The letters relied upon by the claimant were written in the context of settlement negotiations and were protected by without prejudice privilege; therefore, they were inadmissible as acknowledgements under the Limitation Act 1980, and the claim was statute-barred.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 1080
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Bradford and Bingley PLC; Defendant/respondent: Mohammed Rashid
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From Bradford County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Mortgage Shortfall Recovery, Without Prejudice Privilege, Acknowledgement of Debt
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Property Law Limitation of Actions Mortgage Shortfall Recovery Without Prejudice Privilege Acknowledgement of Debt

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bradford and Bingley PLC

Claimant/appellant

Mohammed Rashid

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From Bradford County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether letters written by or on behalf of the defendant constituted admissible acknowledgements of debt under sections 29 and 30 of the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether such letters were protected by without prejudice privilege and thus inadmissible as evidence of acknowledgement

Ratio Decidendi

The letters relied upon by the claimant were written in the context of settlement negotiations and were protected by without prejudice privilege; therefore, they were inadmissible as acknowledgements under the Limitation Act 1980, and the claim was statute-barred.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Stay on assessment of costs removed