Azaz v Denton & Anor

Where an action for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty includes damages for personal injury, Limitation Act 1980 s 11 applies to the action, including separate non-personal-injury claims founded on contract or breach of duty. A claimant may avoid that consequence by abandoning the personal-injury claim, but a refusal to do so permits s 11 to operate in full.

The discretion under s 33 must be assessed separately for each cause of action. It requires consideration of all the circumstances, including prospects of success, delay, evidential prejudice, proportionality and the listed statutory factors. Undue influence does not itself conceal facts for the purposes of s 32(1)(b). Equitable relief to set aside transactions may be barred by laches where, after the influence ends, the claimant delays and has created the impression that the transactions will not be challenged.

Dr Azaz claimed against Mrs Denton and the Centre in respect of money and possessions allegedly transferred to them, the abandonment of his medical career, underpaid work and psychiatric injury. The claims were advanced in undue influence, wrongful interference, contract, breach of duty and personal injury.

The defendants pleaded limitation, disability, fraudulent concealment and laches. Preliminary issues were ordered concerning the Limitation Act 1980, including ss 11, 28, 32 and 33. The court also considered whether a claim based on possession allegedly given on long-term loan should proceed. The central issues were whether the personal-injury claim affected the limitation period for the other claims, whether time could be postponed or disapplied, and whether equitable relief was defeated by delay.

1. Disposition. All causes of action were dismissed except the claim for delivery up of the possessions on the pleaded basis that they had been provided on long-term loan and that their return was demanded on 2 May 2007. That surviving claim was liable to transfer to the county court.
2. Section 11. The wording of Limitation Act 1980 s 11(1) applies to an action, rather than merely to a particular cause of action. It therefore applied where the action included personal-injury damages together with separate claims for breach of contract, negligence or other breach of duty. The relevant claims were consequently statute-barred, subject to s 33.
3. Section 32. The alleged exercise of undue influence did not amount to deliberate concealment of facts relevant to the causes of action. Influence might discourage a person from suing despite knowledge of the facts, but it did not logically establish ignorance of those facts. The answer to the fraudulent-concealment preliminary issue was therefore negative.
4. Section 33. The claimant bore the burden of showing that it would be equitable to disapply s 11. The court had to consider all the circumstances, including the prospects of success, the likely value of the claim, delay before and after expiry of the limitation period, evidential prejudice, the parties’ insurance position, proportionality and the statutory factors in s 33(3). The discretion could be exercised separately for specified causes of action. It was refused. The Injury Claim had been commenced late without a satisfactory explanation, the evidence had materially deteriorated, and the other affected claims were weak or lacked pleaded loss.
5. Laches. The defence was assessed by reference to the parties’ conduct between the transactions and commencement of proceedings, the delay, and whether the defendants had been led reasonably to believe that the transactions would not be challenged. The claimant’s Joining Agreement and Leaving Agreement reinforced that impression. More than three years after recovering capacity and while legally advised, he made no claim until May 2007. It was therefore unfair to permit the Cash Claim and Possessions Claim Mark I to proceed as equitable undue-influence claims.
6. The Career Claim was unsustainable because the claimant had decided to leave medical practice before the alleged undue influence. The Work Claim disclosed no attributed loss.