Dwr Cymru (Welsh Water) v Carmarthenshire County Council

Acknowledgment under section 29(5)(a) of the Limitation Act 1980 does not revive a claim for unliquidated damages in tort. A liquidated pecuniary claim is a claim for a specific sum, or for a sum capable of ready and precise ascertainment without further agreement. Tortious damages remain unliquidated even where their assessment is relatively straightforward. A claim involving complex remedial works, valuation, betterment and mitigation issues is not liquidated. A clear admission of liability therefore does not extend the limitation period where the underlying claim falls outside section 29(5)(a).

The claimant owned a public sewer damaged by piling works undertaken during a development associated with the defendant’s predecessor. The defendant’s solicitors later confirmed that liability was not in issue, and the claimant refrained from issuing proceedings. After the primary limitation period expired, the defendant denied liability on the basis that the claim was statute barred.

The claimant brought proceedings in negligence and nuisance for the costs of remedial works and relied on section 29(5)(a) of the Limitation Act 1980. The preliminary issue was whether the acknowledgment revived the claim, including whether a tort claim could constitute an “other liquidated pecuniary claim” and whether this claim was liquidated.

1. The preliminary issue was decided against the claimant. The claim was barred by section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980, and the claim was dismissed.
2. Section 29(5)(a) does not apply to a claim for damages in tort. The statutory history showed that the acknowledgment doctrine had previously applied to contractual and debt claims, and Parliament had not expressly extended it to tortious claims.
3. “Liquidated” denotes a claim for a specific sum, or a sum capable of ready and precise ascertainment by calculation or extrinsic evidence without further agreement. Damages in tort are assessed by applying common-law rules to the circumstances of the case and are therefore unliquidated, even where assessment may be relatively straightforward.
4. The phrase “any debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim” connotes money due under a contractual or similar obligation, rather than damages or compensation payable for breach of a tortious duty. The authorities concerning contractual or analogous claims did not establish that tort claims could be revived.
5. In any event, the claimant’s claim was not liquidated on either the date the cause of action accrued or the date of the acknowledgment. The appropriate remedial works, their costs, and issues of demolition, reconstruction, underground work, betterment and mitigation remained complex and controversial. The claim had not been quantified even in the Particulars of Claim.
6. The acknowledgment was clear and unequivocal, but the court applied the law rather than considerations of moral fairness. It did not trigger section 29(5)(a).