Winter v Newbys Solicitors & Ors

Limitation turns on when a claimant knew enough of the material facts to bring proceedings, rather than when he later obtained a document. Alleged suppression or delayed release does not postpone the period where the claimant already knew of the document and its significance. Bankruptcy does not suspend the running of limitation periods. Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed grounds have no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason for the appeal to proceed.

Mr Winter brought five actions against solicitor firms, alleging suppression, withholding and forgery of documents connected with earlier litigation and advice concerning tax and legal costs. The High Court, sitting at Newcastle upon Tyne District Registry, struck out the claims as statute-barred and ordered Mr Winter to pay costs. Permission to appeal was refused below. Mr Winter applied to the Court of Appeal, relying principally on the later release or discovery of documents and on his intervening bankruptcy. The central issues were whether those matters affected limitation and whether the proposed appeal had any real prospect of success or other compelling justification.

1. Application refused. Lord Justice Peter Gibson refused permission to appeal. The applicant had not identified any answer to the limitation reasoning which led the High Court to strike out the claims.
2. The relevant question was whether Mr Winter knew enough to bring proceedings earlier, not merely when he later obtained physical possession of a document. The attendance note at the centre of one allegation was known to him by March 1986, even if he alleged that it was forged. The letter dated 15 July 1982 was known to him in 1992 and had appeared in a list of documents prepared for earlier litigation. The letter dated 19 April 1983 was similarly included in a list of documents, and Mr Winter’s own notation showed that it had been brought to his attention on 15 November 1993. He also contended that a witness statement prepared in 1992 was forged, but accepted, as recorded below, that he knew of it by November 1992. Proceedings issued on 3 March 2000 were therefore commenced more than six years after the relevant knowledge.
3. The allegations of suppression did not answer the limitation points where the documents had already been disclosed or their existence and contents were known. The fact that Mr Winter later obtained a document, or disputed its authenticity, did not by itself postpone the time for bringing proceedings.
4. Bankruptcy did not stop limitation periods running. Mr Winter’s allegation that the solicitors had caused his bankruptcy was consequently irrelevant to the limitation issue.
5. Having considered the material placed before him, Gibson LJ concluded that none of the proposed grounds had a real prospect of success and that there was no other compelling reason for the matter to proceed. His sympathy for Mr Winter’s circumstances could not justify permission.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Application for permission to appeal refused. [2001] EWCA Civ 1385.
2. High Court of Justice, Newcastle upon Tyne District Registry: His Honour Judge Behrens struck out the five actions on 4 May 2001, ordered Mr Winter to pay costs and refused permission to appeal. No citation for that order is stated.