Kay v Martineau Johnson (a firm) [2026] EWCA Civ 224 (05 March 2026)

Kay v Martineau Johnson (a firm) [2026] EWCA Civ 224 (05 March 2026)

Ms Kay did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the facts necessary to bring a negligence claim against Martineau Johnson by 2009, as there was no 'something more' to put her on inquiry that the advice was deficient. It was reasonable for her to seek advice from Martineau Johnson, and, absent any indication...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] EWCA Civ 224
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Ellen Kay; Defendants/respondents: Martineau Johnson (A firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Limitation Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods, Negligence by Solicitors, Constructive Knowledge Under Limitation Act 1980, Section 14 a Limitation Act 1980, Impecuniosity and Limitation, Professional Advice and Latent Damage
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Limitation Limitation Periods Negligence by Solicitors Constructive Knowledge Under Limitation Act 1980 Section 14 a Limitation Act 1980 Impecuniosity and Limitation +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ellen Kay

Claimant/appellant

Martineau Johnson (A firm)

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Limitation Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim for negligence against Martineau Johnson is statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 extends the limitation period for Ms Kay's claim
  3. 3 Whether Ms Kay had actual or constructive knowledge of the facts relevant to her cause of action more than three years before issuing proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Kay did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the facts necessary to bring a negligence claim against Martineau Johnson by 2009, as there was no 'something more' to put her on inquiry that the advice was deficient. It was reasonable for her to seek advice from Martineau Johnson, and, absent any indication from them of possible negligence, she was not required to seek independent advice at that stage. Impecuniosity is not a relevant factor in the objective assessment under section 14A(10). Accordingly, the claim is not statute-barred under section 14A.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The decision of the High Court is set aside.
  • The preliminary issue is determined in favour of Ms Kay; her claim is not statute-barred under section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980.