St Anselm Development Company Ltd v Slaughter and May (A Firm)

St Anselm Development Company Ltd v Slaughter and May (A Firm)

The court held that there were separate causes of action in respect of each flat, and the primary limitation period for flat 26 did not start until November 1999, so the claim for flat 26 was not time-barred. However, the claimant had or ought to have had the requisite knowledge for section 14A purposes regarding flat 27 well before August 2002, so the extended limitation period did not apply to flat 27, making that part of the claim time-barred.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: St Anselm Development Company Limited; Defendant/respondent: Slaughter and May (A Firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Summary Dismissal (limitation)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Negligence, Limitation Period, Section 14 a Limitation Act 1980, Leasehold Reform, Compensation for Loss of Indemnity Provisions
Tort Law Professional Negligence Limitation of Actions Solicitor's Negligence Limitation Period Section 14 a Limitation Act 1980 Leasehold Reform Compensation for Loss of Indemnity Provisions

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

St Anselm Development Company Limited

Claimant/appellant

Slaughter and May (A Firm)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Summary Dismissal (limitation)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim in negligence against the defendant solicitors was time-barred under the primary limitation period for flat 26 and flat 27
  2. 2 Whether the extended limitation period under section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 applied to the claim in respect of flat 27

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that there were separate causes of action in respect of each flat, and the primary limitation period for flat 26 did not start until November 1999, so the claim for flat 26 was not time-barred. However, the claimant had or ought to have had the requisite knowledge for section 14A purposes regarding flat 27 well before August 2002, so the extended limitation period did not apply to flat 27, making that part of the claim time-barred.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • Appeal allowed as regards the primary limitation period for flat 26; claim for flat 26 may proceed.
  • Appeal dismissed as regards section 14A for flat 27; claim for flat 27 remains dismissed as time-barred.