It seems strange that, despite the recommendations of the Law Commission
over a decade ago, the Act remains in the state that it is.
In Canada, where provincial legislatures usually take less care about
making time for the reform of private law than does the British
Parliament, over the last 10-15 years, every single province (except
Prince Edward Island) has completely overhauled the limitations regime.
The British government's announcement in 2009 stated:
"...a recent consultation with key stakeholders has demonstrated that
there are insufficient benefits and potentially large-scale costs
associated with the reform. In addition, the courts have remedied some of
the most significant difficulties with the law that the Law Commission
identified, for example, in relation to the limitation aspects of child
abuse cases. The limitation reforms will therefore not now be taken
forward."
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm091119/wmstext
/91119m0003.htm#09111944000028
The first sentence seems very mysterious.
Lionel



On 19-02-14, 7:14 , "James Lee" <j.s.f.lee@BHAM.AC.UK> wrote:

>Dear Colleagues,
>
>
>
>A big decision has been handed down today by the UK Supreme Court in
>Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria
>
>[2014] UKSC 10:
>http://supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2012_0113_Judgment.pdf The
>case considers what the "constructive trustee" formula means and how
>dishonest assistance fits into the limitation framework under s 21 of the
>Limitation Act 1980. A majority of the Supreme Court disagrees with the
>Court of Appeal and holds the claims are time-barred. There are various
>observations about the nature of "ancillary liability" in equity (with a
>some comments on knowing receipt). The two key points decided are that 1)
>the language of "constructive trust" used to describe dishonest assistant
>liability does not mean that there is a true trust for the purposes of
>the section and 2) the phrase (in s 21(1)(a)) "in respect of any fraud or
>fraudulent breach of trust to which the trustee was a party or privy"
>only applies to claims brought against the trustee themselves who was
>party to the fraud. The majority thus agree with the opinion of Lord
>Hoffmann in the Hong Kong case of Peconic Industrial Development Ltd v
>Lau Kwok Fai [2009] 5 HKC 135.
>
>
>
>Lords Mance and Clarke dissents for different reasons and on different
>points.
>
>
>
>Best wishes,
>
>James
>
>
>
>--
>James Lee
>Senior Lecturer and Director of Admissions
>Birmingham Law School, room 235
>University of Birmingham
>Edgbaston
>Birmingham
>B15 2TT, United Kingdom
>
>Tel: +44 (0)121 414 3629
>E-mail: j.s.f.lee@bham.ac.uk
>
>
>Web: http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/staff/profiles/law/lee-james.aspx
>
>
>SSRN: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1192219
>
>[cid:image001.jpg@01CF1B59.C8F60780]<http://www.thestudentsurvey.com/>
>
>====
>
>This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group,
> an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law
> of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in
> the body of a message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubscribe,
> send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to
> all group members, send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is
> run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>.

====

This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group,
an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law
of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in
the body of a message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubscribe,
send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to
all group members, send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is
run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>.