Limitation of Actions Consultation - Law Commission

5 SHOULD THE COURTS HAVE A DISCRETION TO DISAPPLY OR EXCLUDE A
LIMITATION PERIOD?
15.34 We ask consultees whether they agree with our provisional view that within our
core regime the courts should not have a discretion to disapply an initial limitation
period or a long-stop. If consultees disagree, we ask them in what circumstances
they consider that the courts should have a discretion to disapply limitation
periods. (Paragraph 12.196).
THE RANGE OF THE CORE REGIME
1 ACTIONS ON A SPECIALTY
15.35 Our provisional view is that specialties should be subject to our core regime. We
ask consultees whether they agree, and if not, to say why not. (Paragraph 13.6)
2 ACTIONS UNDER THE LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT
1934
15.36 Our provisional view is that claims under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous
Provisions) Act 1934 should be subject to the core regime, save that (as under the
present law in relation to claims for personal injury) the initial limitation period
should start from the later of the date the cause of action was discoverable by the
plaintiff (that is, the personal representative) or the date of death. Do consultees
agree? (Paragraph 13.10).
3 ACTIONS UNDER THE FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT 1976
15.37 We provisionally consider that claims under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 should
be subject to our core regime save that, as under the present law, the date of
discoverability should refer to the knowledge of the dependants for whom the
action is brought. Do consultees agree? (Paragraph 13.16).
4 ACTIONS BY VICTIMS OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
15.38 We are provisionally of the view that claims by victims of child sexual abuse should
continue to be subject to a limitation period. We ask consultees whether they
agree and, if not, to say why not. (Paragraph 13.25).
15.39 Our provisional view is that our core regime (in essence, three years from
discoverability with a long-stop of 30 years from the date of the abuse and
postponement - unless, possibly, there is a representative adult other than the
defendant - for minority and adult disability) should apply, rather than a separate
regime, to claims by victims of child sexual abuse. We ask consultees whether they
agree and, if not, to say why not. (Paragraph 13.37).
5 ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION OR MALICIOUS FALSEHOOD
15.40 We ask consultees whether they agree with our provisional view that defamation
and malicious falsehood should be subject to our core regime. If consultees do not
agree, we ask them what, if any, reform to the present law they would prefer.
(Paragraph 13.43).
408