Arif v Sanger [2021] EWHC 3475 (QB) (21 December 2021)

Arif v Sanger [2021] EWHC 3475 (QB) (21 December 2021)

The Respondent has a real prospect of success in showing that he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the essential facts of the alleged fraud or concealment before 5 July 2013, as required by section 32(1) of the Limitation Act 1980. The existence and timing of any 'trigger' event and the scope of reasonable diligence are fact-sensitive and require oral evidence. Therefore, summary judgment is inappropriate and the limitation issue must proceed to trial.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 3475
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Imran Arif; Appellant/defendant: Dalbir Singh Sanger
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal (from Summary Judgment Refusal) / Post Summary Judgment, Appeal Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal on costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Directors' Duties, Summary Judgment, Deliberate Concealment
Civil Procedure Contract Law Tort Law Company Law Limitation of Actions Fraudulent Misrepresentation Negligent Misrepresentation Directors' Duties +2 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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Imran Arif

Respondent/claimant

Dalbir Singh Sanger

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (from Summary Judgment Refusal) / Post Summary Judgment, Appeal Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim is time-barred under section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether section 32(1)(a) or (b) of the Limitation Act 1980 extends the limitation period due to fraud or deliberate concealment
  3. 3 Whether the claimant could with reasonable diligence have discovered the alleged fraud or concealment before 5 July 2013

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondent has a real prospect of success in showing that he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the essential facts of the alleged fraud or concealment before 5 July 2013, as required by section 32(1) of the Limitation Act 1980. The existence and timing of any 'trigger' event and the scope of reasonable diligence are fact-sensitive and require oral evidence. Therefore, summary judgment is inappropriate and the limitation issue must proceed to trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal on costs dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal against the refusal of summary judgment is dismissed; the limitation issue will proceed to trial.
  • The cross-appeal against the 15% discount in costs is dismissed; the Senior Master's costs order stands.