Limitation of Actions Consultation - Law Commission

egime but should continue to apply to equitable specific remedies
(for example, specific performance or injunctions) whether
interlocutory or final.
(3) Option 3: Laches should continue to apply to all (interlocutory or
final) equitable remedies (including specific performance,
injunctions, an account of profits, equitable damages, equitable
compensation, and rescission) as opposed to common law remedies.
If consultees feel that none of the options discussed above is appropriate,
they are requested to set out their preferred alternative.
18 THE INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OUR PROPOSED CORE
REGIME AND STATUTORY LIMITATION PERIODS OUTSIDE THE
1980 ACT
13.177 Many statutes have their own specialised limitation periods. A sample of these
provisions, including what appear to us to be the most important limitation
periods outside the 1980 Act, was set out in Table 2 at pages 125 - 141 above. It is
necessary to consider the interrelationship between those statutory limitation
periods and our core regime.
13.178 We start with the assumption that a specific statutory provision (that is, one laid
down outside the 1980 Act) should override the core regime. We are carrying out
a general review of limitation periods and it would be wrong to ride roughshod
over a limitation period that has been carefully constructed for a specific context.
Prima facie, therefore, existing statutes which provide more specialised limitation
periods should be left intact. This would correspond to the present approach in
section 39 of the 1980 Act. 247
13.179 Having said that, we have felt it incumbent on us to scrutinise what appear to be
the most important limitation provisions in other statutes to see whether they do
merit a specialised limitation regime or whether, on the contrary, they can
straightforwardly be assimilated within our core regime.
13.180 In some cases the limitation rules are derived from an international convention.
The Hague Visby Rules, for example, are incorporated into the Carriage of Goods
by Sea Act 1971. In such cases it is plainly outside the scope of this project to
recommend amendments. On the contrary, it is not possible under international
law for this country to make a unilateral change to the periods prescribed by the
relevant convention. 248
13.181 In other areas, the issues dealt with raise sensitive policy and political questions
which it would be unwise for us to deal with in this project. We include in this
247 See para 7.26 above.
248 See for example the Carriage by Air Act 1961, the Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965,
the Uniform Law on International Sales Act 1967; the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971,
the Carriage of Passengers by Road Act 1974, the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, and the
Nuclear Installations Act 1965 (which was in part enacted to comply with the United
Kingdom’s obligations under the Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of
Nuclear Energy, 1960).
382