Integral Memory Plc v Watts

Integral Memory Plc v Watts

The Defendant's alleged breach of duty occurred in 2003 when it failed to advise the Claimant of a material change in law affecting the Scheme. The claims in contract and tort are time-barred as the cause of action accrued before 11 May 2005, and the Claimant had knowledge of the material facts and potential claim well before 11 May 2008. There was no continuing duty or new breach after 2003, and the limitation period was not extended under section 14A of the Limitation Act.

Parties
Claimant and Appellant: Integral Memory plc; Defendant and Respondent: Haines Watts
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation Period, Summary Judgment, Negligence by Professional Advisers, Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract
Contract Law Tort Law Professional Negligence Limitation of Actions Limitation Period Summary Judgment Negligence by Professional Advisers Misrepresentation +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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Integral Memory plc

Claimant and Appellant

Haines Watts

Defendant and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant was under a continuing contractual duty to advise the Claimant of changes in law affecting a tax scheme
  2. 2 Whether the claim in contract and tort was time-barred under the Limitation Act
  3. 3 When the Claimant suffered actionable loss for limitation purposes

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's alleged breach of duty occurred in 2003 when it failed to advise the Claimant of a material change in law affecting the Scheme. The claims in contract and tort are time-barred as the cause of action accrued before 11 May 2005, and the Claimant had knowledge of the material facts and potential claim well before 11 May 2008. There was no continuing duty or new breach after 2003, and the limitation period was not extended under section 14A of the Limitation Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Summary judgment for the Defendant is upheld
  • The Claimant's claims are time-barred and dismissed