header-logo header-logo

14 March 2008
Issue: 7312 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

INSOLVENCY

Giles v Rhind [2008] EWCA Civ 118, [2008] All ER (D) 410 (Feb)

The court has jurisdiction to extend the limitation period under s 32(2) of the Limitation Act 1980 to enable a claimant to bring an action based on breach of duty in respect of a transaction allegedly made to defeat the creditors within the meaning of s 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986. For s 32(2) to apply:

(i) there must be the deliberate commission of an act;

(ii) that act must amount to a “breach of duty”; and

(iii) that breach of duty must occur in circumstances in which it is unlikely to be discovered for some time.

If those ingredients are satisfied, then the next step (where the claimant relies on s 32(1)(b)) is to go back to s 32(1)(b) and to identify the facts that are involved in the relevant breach of duty.

After that, those facts can be tested against the right of action relied on in the proceedings. There is no need to show that the right of action was for a breach of duty. All that it is necessary

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll