Excel Polymers Ltd. v Achillesmark Ltd.

Excel Polymers Ltd. v Achillesmark Ltd.

The standstill agreement was a straightforward extension of the limitation period, first to 10 May and then to 10 June 2004. There was no agreement or necessary implication that proceedings could be commenced after that date. There was no common assumption or representation sufficient to found estoppel. The claim is statute barred.

Parties
Claimant: Excel Polymers Limited; Defendant: Achillesmark Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil / Determination of Preliminary Issue on Limitation
Outcome
Claim statute barred; preliminary issue determined in favour of Defendant
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Standstill Agreements, Estoppel, Professional Negligence by Insurance Brokers

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

Parties

Excel Polymers Limited

Claimant

Achillesmark Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Determination of Preliminary Issue on Limitation

  1. 1 Whether the standstill agreement extended the limitation period to include the date proceedings were issued
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant is estopped by convention from relying on limitation
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant is estopped by promissory estoppel from relying on limitation

Ratio Decidendi

The standstill agreement was a straightforward extension of the limitation period, first to 10 May and then to 10 June 2004. There was no agreement or necessary implication that proceedings could be commenced after that date. There was no common assumption or representation sufficient to found estoppel. The claim is statute barred.

Court Disposition

Claim statute barred; preliminary issue determined in favour of Defendant