Su v Clarksons Platou Futures Ltd & Anor

Mr Su had, by 18 July 2012 at the latest, sufficient knowledge of the material facts about the damage and its attribution to the acts of Clarksons and Mr Karakoulakis to satisfy the requirements of s.14A of the Limitation Act 1980. The claim was therefore time-barred and summary judgment was appropriate.

Parties: Appellant/claimant: Mr Nobu Su (also known as Hsin Chi Su, Su Hsin Chi and Nobu Morimoto); Respondent/defendant: Clarksons Platou Futures Limited; Respondent/defendant: Mr Vassilis Karakoulakis
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 16 May 2018
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome: appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Date of Knowledge Under Limitation Act, Summary Judgment, Personal Liability Under Contract

Limitation of Actions Negligence Contract Date of Knowledge Under Limitation Act Summary Judgment Personal Liability Under Contract

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

Mr Nobu Su (also known as Hsin Chi Su, Su Hsin Chi and Nobu Morimoto)

Appellant/claimant

Clarksons Platou Futures Limited

Respondent/defendant

Mr Vassilis Karakoulakis

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

1 When did the claimant acquire the knowledge required under s.14A of the Limitation Act 1980 for the purposes of limitation in a negligence claim?
2 Was summary judgment appropriate on the limitation issue?

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed