Limitation for Claims

When bringing a claim, claimants are subject to limitation periods depending on the type of claim brought to the court. Any claim action must be issued within the relevant timeframe and failing to do so would give the defendant a way to raise the defence of limitation. For example, the following limitation periods apply:

  • six years for claims relating to a contract;
  • three years for claims relating to personal injury;
  • six years for claims relating to negligence;
  • twelve years for claims relating to recovery of land;
  • six years for claims relating to tort; and
  • one year for claims relating to defamation.

A claimant must also take into consideration how to calculate the date on which a claim is brought and the Court of Appeal clearly established in the case St Helens v Barnes [2006] EWCA Civ 1372 that a claim is brought to the court when the court received the claim form and not when the claim form is sent.

Once a claim is brought to the court and the defendant uses the limitation period defence, it is up to the claimant to prove that the time has not expired. This is one of the argument raised in the case involving the Duke of Sussex, Sir Elton John and five other claimants against the publisher Associated Newspapers Ltd.

On 29 March 2023, the BBC reported on the above mentioned claim where the claimants sued the publisher for illegally obtaining their personal information and using it for Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday stories. David Sherborne who represented the claimants argued that they have all been victim of “numerous unlawful acts” which include intercepting telephone conversation; illegally bugging cars and homes and obtaining private information such as bills or medical records. Mr Sherborne pointed out that these unlawful acts happened through a vast period from 1993 to 2011 and beyond until 2018.

On the other side of this case, Associated Newspapers Ltd is seeking for the case to be thrown out as groundless. Among other arguments, the publisher relies on the fact that the claims were based on non-credible evidence as these were depending on a private investigator’s statement who has served a prison sentence. Furthermore, the barristers representing the publisher argued to the High Court that the claimants have now run out of time to bring their claim as it has been now over six years and the claimants should have complained when the articles were published.

It is now up to the claimants to prove that the time has not expired for them to bring their claim. They are arguing that the Mail’s editor swore an oath at the Levenson Inquiry in 2011 according to which no illegal methods of gathering information were used and that this prevented legal actions. Moreover, they are arguing that further evidence came to light which reset the clock for bringing the claim.

The BBC also reported that two other private investigators have made statements to the court supporting the claimant’s case in that they admitted their role in obtaining information illegally and reporting to journalists at the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday.

The parties were present in court throughout the end of March and beginning of April to present their case in front of Judge J Nicklin and when decided, this case should give further clarity over the issue of limitation periods.

For further advice and assistance please contact our Litigation and Dispute Resolution Team on 01604 828282 / 01908 660966 or email info@franklins-sols.co.uk

Disclaimer: The information provided on this blog is for general informational purposes only and is accurate as of the date of publication. It should not be construed as legal advice. Laws and regulations may change, and the content may not reflect the most current legal developments. We recommend consulting with a qualified solicitor for specific legal guidance tailored to your situation.