Limitation of Actions Consultation - Law Commission

outside his control; whether the claimant was misled by the other party; and
whether the other party has been prejudiced by the delay. 20
7.8 Section 12 of the 1996 Act, by contrast, has reduced the court’s discretion,
providing that the court may make an order extending any time limit fixed by the
arbitration agreement only if satisfied:
(1) “that the circumstances are such as were outside the reasonable
contemplation of the parties when they agreed the provision in question,
and that it would be just to extend the time, or
(2) that the conduct of one party makes it unjust to hold the other party to the
strict terms of the provision in question.” 21
7.9 In addition, section 12 provides that a party to an arbitration may only apply to the
court for an order extending an arbitration time limit if a claim has arisen under
the arbitration agreement and “after exhausting any available arbitral process for
obtaining an extension of time”. 22
3. ACTIONS ON A STATUTE (INCLUDING ACTIONS FOR
CONTRIBUTION)
(1) Actions on a Statute
(a) Sections 8 - 9
7.10 Under section 8(1) of the 1980 Act, the limitation period for actions upon a
specialty is twelve years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.
Section 8(2) of the 1980 Act states that the twelve year limitation period
prescribed by subsection 8(1) does not apply where a shorter limitation period is
set under any other provision of the 1980 Act. 23
The primary exception to the
general rule that actions on a statute are subject to a twelve year limitation period
is provided by section 9 of the 1980 Act, which provides that the limitation period
for actions to recover any sum “recoverable by virtue of any enactment” is six years
from the date on which the cause of action accrued. Such actions, while still being
actions on a specialty, are therefore subject to a shorter limitation period.
7.11 Historically, it was said that a specialty was an obligation contained in a sealed
document 24
and there is a line of authority that an obligation contained in a statute
is also to be treated as a specialty. 25
In Collin v Duke of Westminster, 26
a case
20 [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 273, 279, applied in Comdel Commodities Ltd v Siporex Trade SA (No
2) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 207 (HL).
21 Section 12(3).
22 Section 12(2).
23 See eg, Romain v Scuba TV Ltd [1996] 3 WLR 117.
24 For a recent decision see Aiken v Stewart Wrightson Members Agency Ltd [1995] 1 WLR
1281, affirmed [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 117.
25 See Aylott v West Ham Corporation [1927] 1 Ch 30 (CA); Gutsell v Reeve [1936] 1 KB 272;
Pratt v Cook, Son & Co (St Paul’s) Ltd [1940] AC 437; Re Compania de Electricidad de la
113