25.04.2013 Views

Limitation of Actions Consultation - Law Commission

Limitation of Actions Consultation - Law Commission

Limitation of Actions Consultation - Law Commission

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

(1) Whether the core regime should apply to proceedings under s 459 <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Companies Act 1985;<br />

(2) Whether the core regime should apply to equitable, as well as common law,<br />

remedies;<br />

(3) The interrelationship between the core regime and the numerous specific<br />

limitation periods laid down in various statutes outside the <strong>Limitation</strong> Act<br />

1980; 2<br />

(4) Whether there should be a “sweeping-up” or “default” provision.<br />

1 ACTIONS ON A SPECIALTY<br />

13.4 Under section 8 <strong>of</strong> the 1980 Act, actions on a specialty have a limitation period <strong>of</strong><br />

12 years. 3<br />

This applies to a contract executed as a deed. It also applies to actions<br />

on a statute, but its importance here has been considerably diminished by section<br />

9 <strong>of</strong> the 1980 Act, which provides that the limitation period applicable to any<br />

action for a sum recoverable by statute is six years. 4<br />

We discuss actions on a<br />

statute below. 5<br />

13.5 There seems to be no good reason for maintaining the different limitation period<br />

applicable to specialties. Moreover, the existence <strong>of</strong> a different period for<br />

contracts executed as deeds, as opposed to simple contracts, can cause confusion.<br />

For example, it is commonplace in construction works for some contracts to be<br />

made by deed. Our discussions with representatives <strong>of</strong> the construction industry<br />

indicate that they find it needlessly complex and puzzling to have a different<br />

limitation period for contracts executed as deeds as opposed to simple contracts<br />

(let alone further different limitation periods running in tort). An additional<br />

advantage <strong>of</strong> assimilating specialties into the core regime would be in obviating the<br />

present difficulties in interpreting the relationship between sections 8, 9 and 2 in<br />

respect <strong>of</strong> actions for breach <strong>of</strong> statutory duty. 6<br />

13.6 An argument in support <strong>of</strong> there being a longer limitation period for specialties is<br />

that the parties should be free to contract for a longer limitation period by<br />

embodying their agreement in a particular instrument if they wish. However, there<br />

is under English law no restriction on the ability <strong>of</strong> the parties to contract for a<br />

longer limitation period if they can agree to do so, regardless <strong>of</strong> the type <strong>of</strong><br />

2 See para 7.26 ff and Table 2 at pp 125 - 141.<br />

3 See paras 3.1, 7.10. Specialties have been treated differently from other contracts for<br />

historical reasons. A limitation period <strong>of</strong> 20 years was first applied to them by the Civil<br />

Procedure Act 1833 (s 3). This was reduced following the recommendations <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Law</strong><br />

Revision Committee, Fifth Interim Report (Statutes <strong>of</strong> <strong>Limitation</strong>) (1936) Cmd 5334, p 9, to<br />

12 years. When this was reviewed by the <strong>Law</strong> Reform Committee in 1977, it was thought<br />

that it was convenient to maintain a separate period for specialties to give parties to a<br />

contract a convenient way to increase the limitation period. See Twenty-First Report (Final<br />

Report on <strong>Limitation</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Actions</strong>) (1977) Cmnd 6923, para 2.59.<br />

4 See paras 7.10 - 7.16 above.<br />

5 See paras 13.140 - 13.141 below.<br />

6 See paras 7.17 - 7.21 above.<br />

324

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!