17 Jul 2018
The application to recall the Court of Appeal judgment is declined because the applicant failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances necessary to revisit a sealed judgment after the Supreme Court declined leave; the pleadings were before the Court; and s 28 of the Limitation Act does not relieve a self-induced mistake.
31 Aug 2017
Leave to appeal was refused because the central question—whether s 28 of the Limitation Act 1950 applies—remained bound up with unresolved factual findings below, and in those circumstances it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave to the Supreme Court.
6 Sept 2006
The Supreme Court dismissed Amaltal's application for leave because the Court of Appeal's application of s28 to deceit was orthodox and had no prospect of being successfully challenged; the alleged misdirection raised no question of law and was a collateral attack on concurrent factual findings. Maruha was granted leave to appeal on two specified grounds (fiduciary duty and reduction of damages).