Limitation of Actions Consultation - Law Commission

(a) the long-stop limitation period 3
should be inapplicable where the defendant has
deliberately concealed from the plaintiff the facts relevant to the discoverability test
under the core regime, that is
(i) the facts constituting the cause of action;
(ii) the identity of the defendant; and
(iii) that the cause of action is significant 4
(whether by act or omission and whether the concealment took place
contemporaneously with, or subsequent to, the act or omission giving rise to the
cause of action). But, in the absence of deliberate concealment, the long-stop
limitation period should apply where the cause of action rests on the mistake of
the plaintiff or the fraud of the defendant.
(b) Concealment subsequent to the act or omission giving rise to the cause of
action should suspend the running of the long-stop.
(c) As is the case under the present law, for deliberate concealment the defendant
must conceal the relevant facts intending the plaintiff not to discover the truth or
reckless as to whether the plaintiff discovers the truth or not.
If consultees do not agree with these provisional views, we ask them to say why
not. (Paragraph 12.154).
(3) Acknowledgement and Part Payment
15.26 We provisionally recommend that acknowledgement or part payment should
continue to restart a limitation period in relation to, at least, the same actions for
which this is presently the law. (And by limitation period, we mean to refer to
both an initial limitation period and a long-stop). We ask consultees if they agree.
(Paragraph 12.156).
15.27 We are provisionally opposed to an additional requirement that a plaintiff should
have to show that he or she relied on the acknowledgement or part payment. We
ask consultees whether they agree. (Paragraph 12.157).
Should the law on acknowledgement and part payments be extended to
all causes of action?
15.28 We provisionally recommend that acknowledgements and part payments should
start time running again for all claims, whether liquidated or unliquidated.
Consultees are asked whether they agree and, if not, to say why not. (Paragraph
12.167).
3 Our provisional view, that the initial limitation period should run from discoverability,
would ‘swallow up’ the need for deliberate concealment (or mistake or fraud) to extend the
‘initial’ limitation period: see para 12.146 above.
4 And in the case of actions to recover converted goods, the location of the goods: see para
15.41 below.
406