Eagle v Redlime Ltd [2011] EWHC 838 (QB) (04 April 2011)

Eagle v Redlime Ltd [2011] EWHC 838 (QB) (04 April 2011)

The claimant had sufficient knowledge of the material facts about the damage and that it was attributable to Redlime's acts or omissions by 29 October 2006, so the claim is statute barred under section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 838
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 in tort is statute barred.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Limitation Period, Section 14 a Limitation Act 1980, Constructive Knowledge, Building Defects
Tort Law Construction Law Limitation Law Negligence Limitation Period Section 14 a Limitation Act 1980 Constructive Knowledge Building 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 3 Authorities cited 14 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 is statute barred under section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 When the claimant acquired actual or constructive knowledge required to bring an action for damages

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant had sufficient knowledge of the material facts about the damage and that it was attributable to Redlime's acts or omissions by 29 October 2006, so the claim is statute barred under section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980.

Court Disposition

Claim in tort is statute barred.

Orders

  • Parties to seek to agree an order including costs; in default, the court will determine outstanding issues.