Limitation periods signify the timeframe within which a Court claim can be initiated in England and Wales. Governed by the Limitation Act 1980, these periods vary depending on the nature of the claim and can be further adjusted by supplementary legislation, legal precedents, and occasionally at the discretion of the court. Time starts running from a specific event and generally only issuing a claim form stops the limitation clock.
In cases where a professional fails to fulfil their obligations, individuals may have grounds to pursue a claim for professional negligence. This legal avenue allows for the recovery of financial losses incurred due to the professional’s negligence. However, it is crucial to understand the time constraints governing such claims to avoid being time-barred from seeking compensation.
In order to commence a professional negligence claim before a Court in England & Wales you must issue a County Court or High Court claim form accompanied with Particulars of Claim setting out the details of the claim including the remedy sought from the errant professional. The issuance of the Claim Form must be done within strict time limits known as limitation periods and the relevant court fee must be paid (which is a percentage of the losses claimed up to a maximum of £10,000). Please note that prior to starting legal action a pre-action process should be engaged in.
Time Limits for Professional Negligence Claims
Professional negligence claims are subject to specific timeframes dictated by the nature of the incident and the recognition of negligence. This article provides detailed insights into the limitation periods associated with such claims, elucidating when individuals may be entitled to seek damages.
The time limit (or limitation period) for professional negligence claims varies based on several factors, including the circumstances of the claim and the identification of negligence. Understanding these nuances is essential for navigating the legal process effectively.
Primary Limitation Period
The primary limitation period for professional negligence claims typically spans six years from the occurrence of the alleged negligence. Acting promptly within this timeframe is crucial to preserve the integrity of evidence and enhance the likelihood of a successful claim.
Secondary Limitation Period
In some instances, individuals may become aware of professional negligence beyond the initial six-year period. In such cases, a secondary limitation period may apply, providing an additional three years from the date of discovery to initiate a claim.
Longstop Limitation Period
While the secondary limitation period extends the window for filing a claim, it is important to recognise the ultimate cut-off point known as the ‘longstop’ limitation period. This period, set at 15 years from the date of negligence, represents the final opportunity to bring forth a claim.
Consequences of limitation expiry
Understanding whether a claim falls within its limitation period is crucial. If a claim is pursued after this period has lapsed, the defendant can utilise the expiration as a complete defence against the claim.
While it is possible to petition the court for permission to initiate a claim outside the limitation period or extend the period, such requests are rarely granted. A compelling justification for the delay in filing the claim is necessary for these applications to succeed.
Case Law on Limitation for Professional Negligence
Recently, the High Court examined a critical issue concerning the time-bar status of a professional negligence claim in Etroy and RBC Trust Company (Jersey) Limited v Speechly Bircham LLP [2023] EWHC 386 (Ch). The case involved Speechly Bircham LLP, now known as Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, a specialised private client solicitors’ firm. The claimants alleged negligent tax advice provided by the firm, leading to financial losses. In its ruling, the High Court shed light on the requisite level of knowledge necessary for triggering the extended limitation period under section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980, thereby influencing the pursuit of other professional negligence claims.
Etroy & RBC Trust Company (Jersey) Limited v Speechly Bircham LLP
The case involved Stephane Etroy and RBC Trust Company (Jersey) Limited pursuing damages against Speechly Bircham LLP for negligent tax advice. In 2009, Mr. Etroy engaged Speechly to advise on the establishment of a new discretionary trust, the Helios May Trust (HMT), based on previous advice regarding the Helios April Trust (HAT). However, subsequent tax assessments by PwC in 2017 uncovered issues with the HMT, prompting the claimants to initiate legal action in 2021.
Legal Precedents for Professional Negligence
The court’s deliberation centered on determining whether the claimants’ pursuit of damages for negligent tax advice fell within the statute-barred period. Ms. Clare Ambrose, acting as a deputy High Court judge, favoured the claimants, offering valuable insights into the concept of “knowledge” as defined by section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980.
Legislative Framework for Professional Negligence
To gauge the timeliness of a claim against a negligent advisor, understanding the statutory limitations is paramount. Section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980 stipulates a six-year timeframe from the accrual of the cause of action for tort claims, including professional negligence. Section 14A extends this period by three years if the claimant lacked knowledge of material facts at the time of accrual, thereby permitting the pursuit of a claim within three years of acquiring such knowledge.
Understanding Knowledge Parameters
Central to the court’s assessment was determining the claimants’ knowledge of material facts and the attributability of damages to Speechly’s advice. The court emphasised the requisite level of confidence in knowledge, as outlined in Haward v Fawcetts, stressing that reasonable belief suffices to initiate an investigation. Notably, knowledge encompasses awareness of both damages incurred and its connection to the alleged negligence.
Significance of the Judgment
The court’s ruling offers invaluable clarity on the application of the extended limitation period in complex professional negligence cases. Importantly, it establishes that knowledge of investigative costs does not trigger the limitation period’s commencement, aligning with section 14A(10) of the Limitation Act 1980. The judgment underscores the need for thorough legal analysis in cases of potential loss resulting from professional negligence.
Book an Initial Consultation with our Professional Negligence Lawyers
Do you have a claim against a professional? If you want expert legal advice, do not delay in instructing us so we can assess the legal merit of your case.
We can often take on such claims on a no win no fee basis (such as a Conditional Fee Arrangement) once we have discussed the claim with you and then assessed and advised you on the merits of the proposed professional negligence action.
Our expert legal team of leading Professional Negligence Solicitors & Barristers can provide urgent help, advice or representation to you. Just call our Professional Negligence Lawyers on 02071830529 or email us now.
Instruct Specialist Professional Negligence Solicitors
We are a specialist City of London law firm made up of Solicitors & Barristers operating from the only law firm based in the Middle Temple Inn of Court adjacent to the Royal Courts of Justice. Our team have expertise in advising on claims for compensation against professionals that have fallen below the standard expected, which causes clients financial or personal loss. We are experienced in bringing successful claims against negligent solicitors, barristers, financial advisers, insurance brokers, surveyors, valuers, architects, tax advisers and IFAs.
Want legal advice on the merits of your case?
Your legal enquiry goes immediately to our PN litigation team in Middle Temple, London. We can’t take on low value cases or give free legal advice – our minimum fee is £1650 +VAT for a conference with a solicitor and barrister. Call us on +442071830529.
