1998/167 - Boyd v Pickersgill & Le Cornu [1998] UR 167 (6 August 1998)
The plaintiff was not under a practical impossibility to exercise her rights; mere ignorance due to failure of legal advice does not constitute empêchement de fait; prescription was not suspended and the claim is statute-barred.
- Citation
- [1998] UR 167
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Miss Boyd; Defendants: Pickersgill & Le Cornu
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Judgment Date
- 06 August 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Preliminary Action / Judgment on Prescription
- Outcome
- claim dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Prescription, Limitation Period, Contra Non Valentem Agere Nulla Currit Praescriptio, Empêchement De Fait, Failure to Advise, Latent Defect
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Miss Boyd
Plaintiff
Pickersgill & Le Cornu
Defendants
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Action / Judgment on Prescription
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim in contract is statute-barred by prescription
- 2 Whether the maxim contra non valentem agere nulla currit praescriptio suspends prescription in the circumstances
- 3 Whether ignorance of rights due to failure of legal advice constitutes empêchement de fait
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiff was not under a practical impossibility to exercise her rights; mere ignorance due to failure of legal advice does not constitute empêchement de fait; prescription was not suspended and the claim is statute-barred.
Court Disposition
claim dismissed
Orders
- Action in contract is statute-barred by prescription; claim fails.
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