000			01894cab a2200253 4500
001			##L132903
008			060321n2006 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u132903
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aHaward and others v Fawcetts (a firm)
260			_c2006
520			_a[2006] UKHL 9, 1 March 2006. Considers whether a claim for negligence was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980. Appeal by F against a decision ([2004] EWCA Civ 240) that H's negligence claim against them was not statute-barred. H had been advised professionally by F throughout the acquisition of a controlling interest and subsequent further investment in an agricultural machinery company which failed in 1998. H relied on s14A of the Act to extend the basic six year limitation period. He submitted that he did not know more than three years before issuing proceedings against F that the damage was attributable in whole or in part to the act or omission which was alleged to constitute negligence within the meaning of S14A(8)(a) of the Act. "Held": appeal allowed. The requisite knowledge for the purposes of s14A(8)(a) of the Act was knowledge of the facts constituting the essence of the complaint of negligence. H had not discharged the burden of proof of showing that their claim was not-time-barred.
590			_aIKA280306
650	2	4	_aLIMITATION ACT 1980 S14A(8)(A)
650	2	4	_aLIMITATION ACT 1980 S14A(9)
650	2	4	_aLIMITATION ACT 1980 S14A
650	2	4	_aHALLAM-EAMES V MERRETT SYNDICATES LTD
650	2	4	_aHAWARD AND OTHERS V FAWCETTS (A FIRM)
650	2	4	_aNASH V ELI LILLY AND CO
650	2	4	_aDOBBIE V MEDWAY HEALTH AUTHORITY
690			_aMANAGEMENT-BUSINESS MANAGEMENT-PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE-NEGLIGENCE
856	4	8	_uhttps://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd060301/haward-1.htm _zView the judgment free of charge at www.parliament.uk
942			_n0
999			_c76680 _d76680