Companhia De Seguros Imperio v Heath (Rebx) Ltd & Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 219 (20 July 2000)

Companhia De Seguros Imperio v Heath (Rebx) Ltd & Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 219 (20 July 2000)

A claim for equitable compensation for dishonest breach of fiduciary duty, where the underlying facts are the same as those supporting time-barred claims in contract or tort, is subject to the same six-year limitation period by analogy under section 36(1) of the Limitation Act 1980. There is sufficient similarity between the equitable and legal claims to justify applying the limitation period by analogy, and there are no special circumstances making it unjust to do so.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 219
Parties
Appellant: Imperio; Respondent: Heaths
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Preliminary Issue
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Contract, Negligence, Equitable Compensation, Application of Limitation Statutes by Analogy
Equity Contract Law Tort Law Insurance Law Limitation of Actions Fiduciary Duty Breach of Contract Negligence +2 more

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Imperio

Appellant

Heaths

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a claim for equitable compensation for dishonest breach of fiduciary duty is subject to limitation periods by analogy under section 36(1) of the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether the Limitation Act 1980 directly or by analogy bars claims for dishonest breach of fiduciary duty where the underlying facts also support claims in contract or tort

Ratio Decidendi

A claim for equitable compensation for dishonest breach of fiduciary duty, where the underlying facts are the same as those supporting time-barred claims in contract or tort, is subject to the same six-year limitation period by analogy under section 36(1) of the Limitation Act 1980. There is sufficient similarity between the equitable and legal claims to justify applying the limitation period by analogy, and there are no special circumstances making it unjust to do so.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No costs ordered
  • Consent order to be made up by counsel and submitted to the associate