Our articles are written by experts in their field and include individual barristers, solicitors, academics, judges, and leading firms in relevant areas of practice. JIBFL offers authoritative insights into global banking and financial law, providing essential updates for legal practitioners and policymakers. Covering key topics like lending, security interests, derivatives, debt capital markets, banking and finance related disputes, crypto, FinTech and financial regulation, JIBFL serves as a trusted resource for navigating complex legal challenges and staying informed in the financial sector. If you would like to contribute, please email Amanda.Cohen2@lexisnexis.com.
Could’ve, would’ve, should’ve: commercial fraud and the reasonably diligent claimant
© Copyright LexisNexis 2024. All rights reserved.
Over the last two years there have been a number of reported cases dealing with the proper interpretation of s 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 which postpones the normal limitation period in cases of fraud, concealment, or mistake. From the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Test Claimants in the Franked II Group Litigation v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2020] UKSC 47 to the Court of Appeal’s decision in OT Computers Ltd v Infineon Technologies AG [2021] EWCA Civ 501, there have been many recent judgments which clarify concepts like “reasonable diligence”. A further recent decision of the High Court in Arif v Sanger [2021] EWHC 3475 (QB) applies the case law in the context of commercial fraud and corporate directors. This article will bring all of these authorities together and review the major developments to the law of limitation.
If you are already a User, sign in
Or you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.
Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this article in full.
Alternatively you can subscribe here to read unlimited content.
