Author(s)
The Court of Appeal has refused the Claimant permission to appeal the decision of Martin Spencer J in Holmes v S&B Concrete Ltd [2020] EWHC 2277 (QB). Philip Godfrey analysed that decision in an earlier blog post, which can be viewed here.
Permission to appeal was refused on the papers on 17 November 2020 by Floyd LJ. His cited reasons were as follows:
“The principles relevant to this type of case were settled by this court’s decision in Smith v White Knight Laundry Limited [2002] 1 WLR 616. Financial Services Compensation Scheme Limited v Larnell (Insurances) Limited [2005] EWCA Civ 1408 was not concerned with the effect of the restoration of a company to the Register, which is or should be to “place the company and all other persons in the same position (as nearly as may be) as if the company had not been dissolved”. The effect of deeming the company not to have been dissolved in the present case is that time was running during the period of more than 10 years between the date of knowledge (2007) and the commencement of proceedings (2018). The principle, recognised in FSCS, that a limitation period may cease to run during the period of a winding up does not assist the applicant. Even where the principle applies, the limitation period ceases to run only “so far as the operation of the winding-up is concerned” see per Lloyd LJ at [13]. So stated, the principle is not inconsistent with Smith v White Knight. The appeal would not have a real prospect of success, and there is no compelling reason to hear it.“
The decision can be viewed here via the Case Tracker for Civil Appeals.
On 10 April 2024, the High Court handed down its decision in Williams-Henry v Associated British Ports Holdings Ltd [2024] EWHC 806 (KB). In that judgment the presentation of the Claimant’s claim for personal injury was considered fundamentally dishonest and so was dismissed under section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (“the 2015 Act”). In considering whether…
After the introduction of the reforms to the Civil Procedure Rules in 2013, you may recall some judges becoming, at least initially, excited about the prospect of experts giving evidence concurrently (so-called “hot tubbing”). Since that early flush of excitement, I have been involved in only one trial in which it was used and I…
Provisional damages operate as an exception to the general rule that damages are assessed on a once-and-for-all basis. Where a claimant finds themselves at a risk of developing a disease or deterioration in their physical or mental condition in the future, the general rule would require the court to assess that risk and compensate the…
