Various Claimants v News Group Newspapers Ltd

A generic pleading may properly invoke section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 where it identifies common facts, concealment and delayed discovery. The concealment must relate to facts relevant to the claimant’s right of action, rather than merely evidence which strengthens or proves an already complete cause of action. Each claimant relying on section 32 must nevertheless plead and prove claimant-specific facts concerning the relevant cause of action, concealment, knowledge and reasonable diligence. The fact-sensitive issues arising under section 32 are generally better determined at trial than by an interlocutory pleading dispute. A proposed section 32(2) case based on duties owed to others, and not the duty sued upon, raised a serious issue but was not finally determined on the insufficient argument before the court.

The claimants sought permission to amend the generic particulars of claim in tranche 4 of long-running litigation concerning unlawful information gathering. The defendant had pleaded limitation, but accepted that claimants could allege for section 32 purposes that time did not begin to run before May 2011.

The proposed amendments consolidated allegations of deliberate concealment, destruction of evidence, delayed discovery and deliberate breaches of duty. The defendant argued that the pleading relied on concealed evidence rather than facts relevant to the rights of action, failed to distinguish individual claimants’ circumstances, and advanced an unavailable case under section 32(2). The court also considered the relationship between the amendments and replies served by individual claimants.

1. The amendments were allowed. The existing generic pleading already put section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 in issue, despite not naming the provision expressly. The new section largely recast material already pleaded and served a useful clarifying function.
2. Section 32(1)(b) concerns concealment of facts relevant to the claimant’s right of action. It does not ordinarily extend to concealment of evidence which merely makes an existing case stronger or easier to prove. The distinction drawn in Arcadia Group Brands Ltd v Visa Ltd and derived from Johnson v Chief Constable of Surrey was accepted. The pleading nevertheless identified, sufficiently for amendment purposes, both the underlying unlawful acts and concealment of those acts.
3. Each claimant invoking section 32 has a claimant-specific case. The claimant must plead and prove the relevant facts, their concealment, the requisite intention and the date of discovery or the date by which discovery could reasonably have occurred. A generic pleading may contain common facts relied upon by multiple claimants, but it does not remove the need for individual material where circumstances differ. The burden of proof described in Cave v Robinson Jarvis & Rolf was accepted.
4. Limitation under section 32 is intensely fact-sensitive. Questions concerning discovery, reasonable diligence and the relationship between generic and individual causes of action should ordinarily be determined at trial rather than by refusing a generic amendment. A request for further information might be more appropriate than striking out for lack of particularity.
5. The proposed reliance on section 32(2) was troubling because the duties relied upon appeared to be owed to the police, the court or professional bodies, rather than to the claimants, and were not the duties sued upon. Cave v Robinson Jarvis & Rolf and Giles v Rhind (No 2) did not determine that freestanding point. The court declined to disallow the amendment because the issue had received inadequate argument.