Boyd v Pickersgill & Le Cornu [1999] JLR 284 (30 September 1999)
- Citation
- [1999] JLR 284
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Contract Action / Judgment
More details
- Posture
- Contract Action / Judgment
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The limitation period in contract actions is not automatically suspended by ignorance of the cause of action, but may be suspended if such ignorance is reasonable in the circumstances, for example, where it is practically impossible to know the existence of the cause of action or the facts giving rise to it. The promptness of bringing the action once known is irrelevant.
Court disposition
Judgment on limitation period clarified
02
Material facts
Parties
Boyd
ApplicantPickersgill & Le Cornu
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Contract Action / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether ignorance of the cause of action suspends the limitation period in contract actions
- 02
Whether suspension applies only if ignorance is reasonable in the circumstances
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Ignorance of the cause of action should suspend the limitation period.
- Respondent
- Ignorance does not necessarily suspend the limitation period unless it is reasonable or practically impossible to know the cause of action.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
[1999] JLR 284
Ignorance of the cause of action does not necessarily suspend the limitation period, but may do so if ignorance is reasonable in the circumstances, such as practical impossibility of knowing the existence of the cause of action or facts giving rise to it.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The limitation period in contract actions is not automatically suspended by ignorance of the cause of action, but may be suspended if such ignorance is reasonable in the circumstances, for example, where it is practically impossible to know the existence of the cause of action or the facts giving rise to it. The promptness of bringing the action once known is irrelevant.
Court disposition
Judgment on limitation period clarified
Source and reliance status
Official court record
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court record
Judgment
[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [
DONATE ] Jersey Law Reports You are here:
BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Law Reports >> Boyd v Pickersgill & Le Cornu [1999] JLR 284 (30 September 1999) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/1999/JLR990284.html Cite as: [1999] JLR 284 [ New search ] [ Help ] Boyd v Pickersgill & Le Cornu 1999 JLR 284 (30 September 1999) Limitation of Actions - contract actions - suspension of limitation period - not necessarily suspended by ignorance of cause of action but may be if ignorance reasonable in circumstances, e.g. practical impossibility of knowing existence of cause of action or existence of facts giving rise to cause of action-promptness of bringing action once known irrelevant The document you wish to view is available to registered users or can be purchased as a PDF. To purchase this document in PDF format or alternatively to Register to purchase membership go to the Jersey Law website via this link: 1999 JLR 284 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/1999/JLR990284.html
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.