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 was properly struck out and summary judgment entered because the claims for misfeasance in public office and related torts were statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, and section 32 did not apply as the Appellant always knew the relevant facts. The pleadings were inadequately particularised, and any losses claimed after the limitation period were not sufficiently pleaded to survive summary judgment or strike out. The October 2012 letter did not amount to an admission that would revive or extend the limitation period.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 460 (QB)
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; summary judgment and strike out of counterclaim upheld.
Legal Topics
Misfeasance in Public Office, Limitation of Actions, Licensing of Fertility Clinics, Statutory Duties of Regulatory Authorities, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Administrative Law Tort Law Human Rights Law Misfeasance in Public Office Limitation of Actions Licensing of Fertility Clinics Statutory Duties of Regulatory Authorities 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 by limitation.
  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 or summary judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The counterclaim was properly struck out and summary judgment entered because the claims for misfeasance in public office and related torts were statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, and section 32 did not apply as the Appellant always knew the relevant facts. The pleadings were inadequately particularised, and any losses claimed after the limitation period were not sufficiently pleaded to survive summary judgment or strike out. The October 2012 letter did not amount to an admission that would revive or extend the limitation period.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; summary judgment and strike out of counterclaim upheld.

Orders

  • Counterclaim struck out.
  • Summary judgment entered for Respondent on counterclaim.