Limitation of Actions Consultation - Law Commission

question. In short, the current law of limitations needlessly wastes costs for parties
and the state.
(7) Summary
11.14 In our opinion, therefore, the existing law on limitations is unsatisfactory. At this
stage in our thinking, we consider that it does not provide an even balance between
the interests of plaintiffs in having a sufficient time to identify their claim and
pursue it, the interests of defendants in having the certainty that after the expiry of
a fixed period of time they are no longer exposed to liability, and the interests of
the state in ensuring that there is an end to litigation, and in the efficient use of its
resources. 36
The very nature of the problems identified leads us to the provisional
view that minor reforms, producing further tinkering, are not what is required:
only a comprehensive reform can produce a coherent scheme that is clear,
certain, just, modern and cost-effective.
11.15 It is therefore our provisional view that there should be a fundamental
reform of the law of limitations in order to produce a modern code which
is, so far as possible, simple, coherent, fair, up-to-date, clear and cost
effective. We ask consultees whether they agree. If consultees disagree, we
ask them what range of reforms, if any, they would favour.
2. AN OUTLINE OF OUR MAIN PROVISIONAL PROPOSALS 37
(1) A Core Regime 38
11.16 We provisionally propose a core regime. The central features of the core regime
would be as follows:-
(1) There would be an initial limitation period of three years that would run
from when the plaintiff knows, or ought reasonably to know, that he or she
has a cause of action. (But on this most fundamental of questions, we
should stress at the outset that we seek consultees’ views on whether they
would prefer one of four other main options for reform).
(2) There would be a long-stop limitation period of 10 years, or in personal
injury claims of 30 years, that would run from the date of the act or
omission which gives rise to the claim.
(3) The plaintiff’s disability (including supervening disability) would extend
the initial limitation period (unless, possibly, there is a representative adult
other than the defendant). Adult disability would not extend the long-stop
limitation period (and we seek views as to whether minority should do so).
36 See our discussion of the interests which must be served by the limitation system at paras
1.22 - 1.38 above.
37 We here repeat paras 1.47 - 1.51 above.
38 See Part XII below.
245