Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority v ARGC Ltd [2016] EWHC 460 (QB) (04 March 2016)

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority v ARGC Ltd [2016] EWHC 460 (QB) (04 March 2016)

The counterclaim for misfeasance in public office and related torts is statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980 because the alleged losses occurred before the relevant limitation period and section 32 does not apply; the October 2012 letter did not provide a new fact necessary for the cause of action but only evidence of facts already known to the Appellant. The pleadings were insufficiently particularised and embarrassing, justifying strike out and summary judgment.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 460
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority; Defendant/appellant: ARGC Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Summary Judgment and Strike Out of Counterclaim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Misfeasance in Public Office, Limitation of Actions, Licensing of Fertility Clinics, Statutory Duties of Regulators, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Administrative Law Tort Law Public Law Misfeasance in Public Office Limitation of Actions Licensing of Fertility Clinics Statutory Duties of Regulators Summary Judgment +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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

Claimant/respondent

ARGC Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Summary Judgment and Strike Out of Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the counterclaim for misfeasance in public office and related torts is statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 postpones the limitation period due to alleged concealment
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings in the counterclaim are sufficiently particularised to survive strike out

Ratio Decidendi

The counterclaim for misfeasance in public office and related torts is statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980 because the alleged losses occurred before the relevant limitation period and section 32 does not apply; the October 2012 letter did not provide a new fact necessary for the cause of action but only evidence of facts already known to the Appellant. The pleadings were insufficiently particularised and embarrassing, justifying strike out and summary judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Counterclaim remains struck out
  • Summary judgment for the Respondent on the counterclaim