Ford & Warren v Warring- Davies

A cause of action for breach of contract or duty accrues when the breach occurs. Knowledge of the defendant’s motive or explanation is not required. Under section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, the concealed fact must be one without which the cause of action is incomplete. Deliberate concealment requires intentional concealment, or deliberate commission of a breach which was unlikely to be discovered for some time. A breach which was apparent immediately does not satisfy that requirement. Reasonable diligence is assessed by asking when the claimant could have discovered the relevant facts without exceptional measures. The claim was therefore statute-barred.

Dr Kenneth Warring-Davies sued his solicitors, Ford & Warren, alleging that they breached contract and duties by failing to date and complete agreements intended to commercialise his invention. The agreements were signed but left undated in December 2003 because the defendant had not approved proposed changes concerning its fees and security. The prospective commercial partner withdrew in January 2004.

The Bradford County Court dismissed the defendant’s application to strike out the claim on limitation grounds. Briggs J granted permission to appeal. The High Court considered afresh whether the claim accrued in January 2004 and whether the claimant could rely on deliberate concealment under section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980.

1. Appeal allowed. The claim was dismissed as statute-barred.
2. The pleaded claim was one for breach of contract and breach of duty arising from the defendant’s alleged failure in December 2003 or January 2004 to date and complete the agreements. The inclusion of fiduciary-duty allegations did not alter the limitation analysis. The cause of action accrued when the breach occurred, in January 2004.
3. The claimant did not need to know why the defendant had failed to complete the agreements. The breach itself, rather than the defendant’s motive or explanation, gave rise to the cause of action. The alleged concealed information was not necessary to plead a complete claim.
4. There was no arguable case of deliberate concealment under either limb of section 32. The defendant had made clear that completion depended on agreement to the revised fee and security arrangements. The undated documents openly recorded that position. The alleged breach was therefore apparent and discoverable immediately.
5. Alternatively, the claimant knew, or ought to have known, by late December 2003 or early January 2004 why the documents remained incomplete. Even if he had lacked that knowledge, reasonable diligence would have enabled him to obtain it within weeks of LNT’s withdrawal on 15 January 2004. Section 32 could therefore have extended the period only by about one month, leaving the claim out of time.
6. The court did not determine costs.

1. High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): appeal allowed against the Bradford County Court decision. The claimant’s claim was dismissed as statute-barred.
2. Bradford County Court: HHJ Shaun Spencer QC dismissed the defendant’s application to strike out the claim on limitation grounds in a judgment dated 16 May 2012.