Parkin & Ors v Alba Proteins Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 2036 (QB) (31 July 2013)

Parkin & Ors v Alba Proteins Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 2036 (QB) (31 July 2013)

D2 (Alba Proteins Penrith Limited) deliberately concealed from the claimants the fact that D1 (Alba Proteins Limited) was the operator of the site during the relevant period, and did so as agent for D1. This concealment postponed the running of the limitation period under s32(1)(b) Limitation Act 1980 until the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 2036
Parties
Claimant: Michael Vincent Parkin and others named on the Group Register; Defendant: Alba Proteins Limited; Defendant: Alba Proteins Penrith Limited; Defendant: Omega Proteins Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Group Litigation Order (glo) Nuisance / Judgment on Limitation and Allied Matters
Outcome
Claims against D1 for the period 1 January 2005 to 14 November 2006 are not statute-barred; application for estoppel against D2 is rejected.
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Nuisance, Concealment, Estoppel, Addition of Parties
Tort Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Nuisance Concealment Estoppel Addition of Parties

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Vincent Parkin and others named on the Group Register

Claimant

Alba Proteins Limited

Defendant

Alba Proteins Penrith Limited

Defendant

Omega Proteins Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Group Litigation Order (glo) Nuisance / Judgment on Limitation and Allied Matters

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims against D1 (Alba Proteins Limited) for nuisance prior to 14 November 2006 are statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether D2 (Alba Proteins Penrith Limited) is estopped from denying liability for the relevant period
  3. 3 Whether there was deliberate concealment of a relevant fact by D2 as agent for D1 under s32(1)(b) Limitation Act 1980

Ratio Decidendi

D2 (Alba Proteins Penrith Limited) deliberately concealed from the claimants the fact that D1 (Alba Proteins Limited) was the operator of the site during the relevant period, and did so as agent for D1. This concealment postponed the running of the limitation period under s32(1)(b) Limitation Act 1980 until the claimants could with reasonable diligence have discovered D1's responsibility, which was no earlier than July 2012. Therefore, the claims against D1 for the period 1 January 2005 to 14 November 2006 are not statute-barred. Estoppel does not apply to create liability for D2 for periods it was not the operator.

Court Disposition

Claims against D1 for the period 1 January 2005 to 14 November 2006 are not statute-barred; application for estoppel against D2 is rejected.

Orders

  • Declaration that claims against D1 for the relevant period are not time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980 s32(1)(b)
  • Application for estoppel against D2 dismissed