Biggs & Anor v Sotnicks (a firm)& Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 272 (24 January 2002)

Biggs & Anor v Sotnicks (a firm)& Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 272 (24 January 2002)

The claimants, by February 1991, had sufficient information to plead their case in deceit and could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the alleged fraud. The conveyancing file was not necessary to plead the claim, and reasonable diligence required earlier action. Therefore, the claim was statute-barred.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 272
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Valentine Charles Biggs; Claimant/appellant: Molly Rose Biggs; Defendant/respondent: Sotnicks (A Firm); Defendant/respondent: Michael Abraham Philip Harris; Defendant/respondent: Michael Kenneth Pascoe; Defendant/respondent: Michael Dalton; Defendant/respondent: John Anthony Conway; Defendant/respondent: Brian Laurence Philips; Defendant/respondent: Alan G Froud
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 January 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Judgment Dismissing Action as Statute Barred; Permission to Appeal Limited to Deceit Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation Period for Fraud/deceit, Reasonable Diligence in Discovery of Fraud, Solicitor's Duties, Deceit by Representation, Section 32 Limitation Act 1980
Civil Procedure Limitation Law Tort Limitation Period for Fraud/deceit Reasonable Diligence in Discovery of Fraud Solicitor's Duties Deceit by Representation Section 32 Limitation Act 1980

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Valentine Charles Biggs

Claimant/appellant

Molly Rose Biggs

Claimant/appellant

Sotnicks (A Firm)

Defendant/respondent

Michael Abraham Philip Harris

Defendant/respondent

Michael Kenneth Pascoe

Defendant/respondent

Michael Dalton

Defendant/respondent

John Anthony Conway

Defendant/respondent

Brian Laurence Philips

Defendant/respondent

Alan G Froud

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Judgment Dismissing Action as Statute Barred; Permission to Appeal Limited to Deceit Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When did the limitation period for a deceit claim begin to run under section 32(1) of the Limitation Act 1980?
  2. 2 Could the claimants, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the alleged fraud/deceit before April 1993?
  3. 3 Was it necessary to obtain the conveyancing file to plead the deceit claim?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants, by February 1991, had sufficient information to plead their case in deceit and could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the alleged fraud. The conveyancing file was not necessary to plead the claim, and reasonable diligence required earlier action. Therefore, the claim was statute-barred.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Determination of claimants' liability to pay respondents' costs postponed generally with permission to apply for determination.