James & Anor v HSBC UK Bank PLC (Rev1) [2026] EWCA Civ 88 (17 February 2026)

James & Anor v HSBC UK Bank PLC (Rev1) [2026] EWCA Civ 88 (17 February 2026)

The claimants knew sufficient facts in 2013 to plead fraud, making all pleaded claims, including constructive trust and restitutionary claims, statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980. The Judge did not make a mistake in interpreting the evidence, and the AIC jurisdiction to re-open the judgment was not engaged.

Citation
[2026] EWCA Civ 88
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mark Wolfe James; Claimant/appellant: Sian Caroline James; Defendant/respondent: HSBC UK Bank PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order Striking Out Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Constructive Trusts, Fraud, Deceit, Restitution, Breach of Contract
Civil Procedure Banking Law Contract Law Tort Law Limitation of Actions Constructive Trusts Fraud Deceit +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Wolfe James

Claimant/appellant

Sian Caroline James

Claimant/appellant

HSBC UK Bank PLC

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order Striking Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim was statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether the Judge made a mistake in interpreting evidence relevant to limitation
  3. 3 Whether constructive trust and restitutionary claims could be pleaded based on alleged fraud

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants knew sufficient facts in 2013 to plead fraud, making all pleaded claims, including constructive trust and restitutionary claims, statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980. The Judge did not make a mistake in interpreting the evidence, and the AIC jurisdiction to re-open the judgment was not engaged.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claim struck out in its entirety
  • Application to amend Particulars of Claim dismissed