Abstract
AbstractThe law concerning limitation periods has long been recognised to be unsatisfactory. One area which poses particular problems concerns whether a limitation period can apply to equitable claims “by analogy” under section 36 of the Limitation Act 1980. This article considers three relatively recent decisions of the Court of Appeal – P & O Nedlloyd BV v Arab Metals Co. (The UB Tiger) [2006] EWCA Civ 1717, [2007] 1 W.L.R. 2288, The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v IGE USA Investments Ltd. [2021] EWCA Civ 534, [2021] Ch. 423 and The Claimants in the Royal Mail Group Litigation v Royal Mail Group Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 1173 – which illustrate that very different approaches have been taken. It is argued that The UB Tiger was wrongly decided, or at least should be limited to specific performance, and revives calls for legislative reform.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
