Time Limit in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Dedman v British Building & Engineering Appliances Ltd
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 06 Nov 1973

    Contrariwise, docs total ignorance of his rights inevitably mean that it is impracticable for him to present his complaintin time? It would be necessary to pay regard to his circumstances and the course of events. What were his opportunities for finding out that he had rights? The word "practicable" is there to moderate the severity of the maxim and to require an examination of the circumstances of his ignorance.

  • Walls Meat Company Ltd v Khan
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 24 Oct 1978

    It is simply to ask this question: Had the man just cause or excuse for not presenting his complaint within the prescribed time? Ignorance of his rights - or ignorance of the time limit - is not just cause or excuse, unless it appears that he or his advisers could not reasonably be expected to have been aware of them. If he or his advisers could reasonably have been so expected, it was his or their fault, and he must take the consequences.

    The performance of an act, in this case the presentation of a complaint, is not reasonably practicable if there is some impediment which reasonably prevents, or interferes with, or inhibits, such performance.

  • Sayers v Clarke Walker (A Firm)
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 10 Jul 2002

    Even though this may not be a sanction expressly "imposed" by the rule, the consequence will be exactly the same as if it had been, and it would be far better for courts to follow the check-list contained in CPR 3.9 on this occasion, too, than for judges to make their own check-lists for cases where sanctions are implied and not expressly imposed.

  • Revici v Prentice Hall Incorporated
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 11 Dec 1968

    Nowadays we regard time very differently from what they did in the 19th century. We have had occasion recently to dismiss many cases for want of prosecution when people have not kept to the rules as to time. So here, although the time is not so very long, it is quite long enough. There was ample time for considering whether there should be an appeal or not. Moreover (and this is important), not a single ground or excuse is put forward to explain the delay and why he did not appeal.

  • London & Clydeside Estates Ltd v Aberdeen District Council
    • House of Lords
    • 08 Nov 1979

    When Parliament lays down a statutory requirement for the exercise of legal authority it expects its authority to be obeyed down to the minutest detail. At the other end of the spectrum the defect in procedure may be so nugatory or trivial that the authority can safely proceed without remedial action, confident that, if the subject is so misguided as to rely on the fault, the courts will decline to listen to his complaint.

  • Schmidt v Home Office ; Schmidt v Secretary of State for Home Affairs
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 19 Dec 1968

    He has no right to enter this country except by leave: and, if he is given leave to come for a limited period, he has no right to stay for a day longer than the permitted time. If his permit is revolted before the time limit expires, he ought, I think, to be given an opportunity of making representations; for he would have a legitimate expectation of being allowed to stay for the permitted time.

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT