{"title":"SECTION 36 OF THE LIMITATION ACT 1980","authors":"Paul S. Davies","doi":"10.1017/s0008197323000429","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The 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.","PeriodicalId":46389,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Law Journal","volume":"149 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008197323000429","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract The 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.
长期以来，有关诉讼时效的法律一直被认为是不令人满意的。造成特别问题的一个领域是，根据1980年《时效法》第36条，时效期是否可以“通过类比”适用于衡平法上的索赔。本文考虑了上诉法院最近的三个判决- P &O Nedlloyd BV诉阿拉伯金属有限公司(The UB Tiger) [2006] EWCA Civ 1717， [2007] 1 W.L.R. 2288，英国税务海关总署诉IGE USA Investments Ltd .。[2021] EWCA Civ 534， [2021] Ch. 423和The claims in The Royal Mail Group Litigation v Royal Mail Group Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 1173 -这说明采取了非常不同的方法。有人认为，UB老虎是错误的决定，或者至少应该限制在具体的表现，并重新呼吁立法改革。
期刊介绍：
The Cambridge Law Journal publishes articles on all aspects of law. Special emphasis is placed on contemporary developments, but the journal''s range includes jurisprudence and legal history. An important feature of the journal is the Case and Comment section, in which members of the Cambridge Law Faculty and other distinguished contributors analyse recent judicial decisions, new legislation and current law reform proposals. The articles and case notes are designed to have the widest appeal to those interested in the law - whether as practitioners, students, teachers, judges or administrators - and to provide an opportunity for them to keep abreast of new ideas and the progress of legal reform. Each issue also contains an extensive section of book reviews.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
