Eagle v Redlime Ltd

Eagle v Redlime Ltd

Mr Eagle had sufficient knowledge of the material facts about the damage and its possible attribution to Redlime's acts or omissions prior to 29 October 2006, satisfying the statutory requirements for the limitation period under section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980. His claim is therefore statute barred.

Parties
Claimant: Clinton Eagle; Defendant: Redlime Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Tort Claim (negligence) / Preliminary Issue Trial on Limitation
Outcome
Claim statute barred
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Negligence, Construction Defects
Tort Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Negligence Construction Defects

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clinton Eagle

Claimant

Redlime Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Tort Claim (negligence) / Preliminary Issue Trial on Limitation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's tort claim against Redlime Limited is statute barred under section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Eagle had sufficient knowledge of the material facts about the damage and its possible attribution to Redlime's acts or omissions prior to 29 October 2006, satisfying the statutory requirements for the limitation period under section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980. His claim is therefore statute barred.

Court Disposition

Claim statute barred

Orders

  • Claim dismissed as statute barred under section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980
  • Counsel to agree and draw up an order including costs; in absence of agreement, court will address outstanding issues