Lowsley and Another v. Forbes (Trading as L.E. Design Services)

The House of Lords considered the construction of sections 24(1) and 24(2) of the Limitation Act 1980 and the application of section 32(1). The court held that "action" in section 24(1), read with the definition in section 38(1), means a fresh action and does not extend to court proceedings for execution of an existing judgment; thus leave to execute under the Rules is not barred by section 24(1). However, section 24(2) bars recovery of arrears of interest in respect of any judgment debt after six years from the date on which the interest became due, and that restriction applies to execution of judgments as well as to fresh actions. Section 32(1) (the concealment/fraud exception) does not apply to extend the period in section 24(2) for recovery of interest by execution.

The plaintiffs obtained a consent judgment in February 1981 for

By 1992 the judgment debt together with interest had grown substantially and the plaintiffs sought leave from the Master under the Rules (R.S.C. Ord. 46, r. 2(1)(a)) to enforce the judgment because more than six years had elapsed since the judgment. They obtained a charging order and a garnishee order. At first instance, Tuckey J. permitted enforcement but limited recoverable interest to six years; the Court of Appeal agreed with the judge on whether execution was barred but held interest should run from the date of judgment.

Issues before the House were:

• (i) whether section 24(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 bars execution of a judgment after six years or only the bringing of a fresh action on the judgment;
• (ii) whether section 24(2) limits recoverable arrears of interest to six years prior to enforcement when a judgment is executed after six years;
• (iii) whether section 32(1) permits extension of the limitation period where the defendant concealed facts relevant to recovery (the defendant's whereabouts and assets).

The House, after reviewing the historical development of limitation law and relevant authorities (including W.T. Lamb & Sons v. Rider), concluded that section 24(1) relates to fresh actions and does not bar court proceedings to enforce a judgment; but section 24(2) should be given its ordinary meaning and bars recovery of arrears of interest after six years, applying to executions as well as actions. Section 32(1) was held not to apply to extend the period in section 24(2) for recovery by execution.

Appeal allowed in part. The House held that section 24(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 concerns fresh actions and does not bar enforcement proceedings; but section 24(2) bars recovery of arrears of interest more than six years old and that limitation applies to execution as well as to actions. Section 32(1) does not extend the time limit in section 24(2) for recovery of interest. Consequently enforcement of the judgment was permitted but recoverable interest was limited to six years and certain prior orders were to be discharged or set aside and an overpayment repaid.