Boyd v Pickersgill & Le Cornu [1998] JLR 305 (06 August 1998)
The court held that mere ignorance of a cause of action is not sufficient to suspend the limitation period; suspension requires that it was practicably impossible for the plaintiff to bring the action within the limitation period.
- Citation
- [1998] JLR 305
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Boyd; Defendant: Pickersgill & Le Cornu
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Judgment Date
- 06 August 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Judgment
- Outcome
- claim dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Running of Time, Suspension of Limitation, Empêchement De Fait, Prescription
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 1 Party arguments 2
Parties
Boyd
Plaintiff
Pickersgill & Le Cornu
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether mere ignorance of a cause of action suspends the limitation period under the doctrine of empêchement de fait.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that mere ignorance of a cause of action is not sufficient to suspend the limitation period; suspension requires that it was practicably impossible for the plaintiff to bring the action within the limitation period.
Court Disposition
claim dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment