Canada Square Operations Ltd v Potter

Canada Square Operations Ltd v Potter

Section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980 applies where the defendant intentionally conceals from the claimant a fact relevant to the right of action, regardless of whether there is a legal duty to disclose. Recklessness does not suffice. Section 32(2) requires actual knowledge or intention to commit a breach of...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Canada Square Operations Ltd; Respondent: Mrs Potter
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation Act 1980 Section 32, Deliberate Concealment, Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 140 a, Payment Protection Insurance (ppi) Mis Selling
Limitation Law Consumer Credit Limitation Act 1980 Section 32 Deliberate Concealment Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 140 a Payment Protection Insurance (ppi) Mis Selling

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canada Square Operations Ltd

Appellant

Mrs Potter

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980 requires a duty of disclosure for concealment to be 'deliberate'
  2. 2 Whether 'deliberate' in section 32(1)(b) and 32(2) includes recklessness or requires intention/knowledge
  3. 3 Whether the non-disclosure of commission on a PPI policy by a lender amounts to deliberate concealment under the Limitation Act 1980

Ratio Decidendi

Section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980 applies where the defendant intentionally conceals from the claimant a fact relevant to the right of action, regardless of whether there is a legal duty to disclose. Recklessness does not suffice. Section 32(2) requires actual knowledge or intention to commit a breach of duty; recklessness is not enough. On the facts, the defendant deliberately concealed the commission, so the limitation period was postponed and the claim is not time-barred.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The claim is not time-barred under section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980.
  • The defendant's limitation defence fails.