Cave v. Robinson Jarvis & Rolf

HOUSE OF LORDS

Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough Lord Millett Lord Scott of Foscote

OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT

IN THE CAUSE

CAVE

(RESPONDENT)

v.

ROBINSON JARVIS & ROLF (A FIRM)

(APPELLANTS)

ON 25 APRIL 2002

[2002] UKHL 18

LORD SLYNN OF HADLEY

My Lords,

    1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Scott of Foscote. I agree with him for the reasons he gives that the appeal should be allowed.

LORD MACKAY OF CLASHFERN

My Lords,

    2. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speeches prepared by my noble and learned friends Lord Millett and Lord Scott of Foscote. I agree that this appeal should be allowed for the reasons which they have given.

LORD HOBHOUSE OF WOODBOROUGH

My Lords,

    3. I agree that this appeal should be allowed for the reasons to be given by my noble and learned friends Lord Millett and Lord Scott of Foscote whose opinion I have read in draft.

LORD MILLETT

My Lords,

    4. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Scott of Foscote. I gratefully adopt his narrative of the facts and the procedural history of these proceedings.

    5. The limitation of actions is entirely statutory. The first statute was The Limitations Act 1623 (21 Jac 1, c 16). For almost four centuries, therefore, it has been the policy of the legislature that legal proceedings should be brought, if at all, within a prescribed period from the accrual of the cause of action. The statutes of limitation have been described as "statutes of peace". They are regarded as beneficial enactments and are construed liberally.

    6. The underlying policy to which they give effect is that a defendant should be spared the injustice of having to face a stale claim, that is to say one with which he never expected to have to deal: see Donovan v Gwentoys Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 472, 479A per Lord Griffiths. As Best CJ observed nearly 200 years ago, long dormant claims have often more of cruelty than of justice in them: see A'Court v Cross (1825) 3 Bing 329, 332-333. With the passage of time cases become more difficult to try and the evidence which might have enabled the defendant to rebut the claim may no longer be available. It is in the public interest that a person with a good cause of action should pursue it within a reasonable period.

    7. But this assumes that the plaintiff knows or ought to know that he has a cause of action. In common justice a plaintiff ought not to find that his action is statute-barred before he has had a reasonable opportunity to bring it. To this end the Limitation Acts contain provisions which extend, suspend or postpone the commencement of the limitation period in prescribed circumstances. The particular provision with…