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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Should an acknowledgement or part payment bind anyone other than the<br />

person making the acknowledgement or payment?<br />

15.29 Though we believe that separate rules should continue to apply to actions in<br />

respect <strong>of</strong> mortgages and for the possession <strong>of</strong> land, we provisionally recommend<br />

that, otherwise, there should be no difference in the effect on third parties <strong>of</strong> part<br />

payments as opposed to acknowledgements: both acknowledgements and part<br />

payments should only bind the acknowledgor or the person making the part<br />

payment (or their successor). We ask consultees whether they agree with this<br />

provisional recommendation. (Paragraph 12.172).<br />

Should an acknowledgement or part payment be capable <strong>of</strong> reviving a<br />

claim if it is made after the limitation period has already expired?<br />

15.30 We provisionally recommend that there should be no reform <strong>of</strong> the law to enable<br />

an acknowledgement or part payment to revive a claim notwithstanding the expiry<br />

<strong>of</strong> a limitation period. We ask consultees whether they agree, or whether they<br />

consider that acknowledgements made after the expiry <strong>of</strong> a limitation period<br />

should revive the plaintiff’s cause <strong>of</strong> action (where the expiry <strong>of</strong> a limitation period<br />

serves only to bar the remedy rather than to extinguish the plaintiff’s claim).<br />

(Plaintiffs 12.177).<br />

15.31 We ask consultees for their views as to whether a contract (for example, a<br />

contractual compromise) can be effective to revive a party’s rights when those<br />

rights would otherwise have been extinguished by the operation <strong>of</strong> the law <strong>of</strong><br />

limitations. (Paragraph 12.181).<br />

Other issues<br />

15.32 We take the provisional view that the requirement that an acknowledgement must<br />

be in writing if it is to restart a limitation period should remain. “Writing” for these<br />

purposes would include any recording by any means <strong>of</strong> a representation <strong>of</strong> words,<br />

symbols or numbers, whether recorded by the acknowledgor or the recipient <strong>of</strong> the<br />

acknowledgement. We ask consultees<br />

(1) whether they agree with our provisional view that only acknowledgements<br />

in writing should be effective to restart a limitation period?<br />

(2) whether they think that oral acknowledgements should in some, but not all,<br />

circumstances extend a limitation period, and if so, in what circumstances<br />

they would recognise an oral acknowledgement as having this effect?<br />

(Paragraph 12.184).<br />

15.33 Our provisional view is that, other than the changes which we have provisionally<br />

recommended above, the law on acknowledgements and part payments is not in<br />

need <strong>of</strong> reform. We ask consultees if they agree. If consultees disagree, they are<br />

invited to tell us <strong>of</strong> any problems in the existing law and <strong>of</strong> the reforms which they<br />

consider desirable (Paragraph 12.186).<br />

407

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!