Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 08:51

From: Louis Joseph

Subject: Bye-bye limitation?

Dear Hector,

I agree with you, but having followed this very lively and - if I may say so - productive discussion closely, I think - mayhap - there is more to this than meets the eye? It also suggests that the Scottish viewpoint is slightly different from the common law ken. If push comes to shove, I rather prefer the northern perspective.

Best wishes,
Louis Joseph

Barrister
Legal Counsel

BoardEx®
Elizabeth House
5th Floor, York Road
London SE1 7NQ

330 Madison Ave
New York
NY10017

+44(0)20 7160 9600 (tel)
+44(0)20 7160 9633 (direct)
+44(0)20 7160 9605 (fax)
+44(0)7984 752966 (mobile)
+1 646 495 5390 (NY)
+65 6444 3416 (S'pore)

________________________________
From: Hector MacQueen  
Sent: Tue 08/07/2008 16:37
To: Louise Belanger-Hardy
Subject: RE: bye-bye limitation?

Surely the problem with all these arguments about particular types of case is, where do you stop? For example, claims about child abuse in the 1960s were recently held excluded by limitation provisions in a Scottish House of Lords appeal available here.

Seems pretty tough to me, but I can see why the judges have taken this line all the way up the court ladder.

We might also want to look at environmental damage cases and so on and so on. It seems to me that if we accept the validity of the policy of limitation (and prescription) rules, then they ought to operate as generally as possible and in as strict law manner as possible (i.e. no equitable extensions or the like). Responding to the hard cases which will always arise makes for bad law-making, I think.

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>