[2025] EWHC 2336 (Ch)

The Claim Form in Wigan v PAG was issued on 1 June 2017, while the Relevant Dates in respect of Unit 5B and Unit 5C fell more than 6 years earlier. If Wigan had served the Demand Notices as soon as practicable after the relevant dates, it would have been more than 6 years before proceedings were issued, and they would have had a limitation defence. The defendant submitted that the delay deprived PAG of limitation defence.

But this is to assume that if demand notices have been served earlier, these proceedings would still have been commenced in June 2017. If demand notices been served earlier, the whole process would no doubt have been accelerated by the same amount of time.

Even if the primary limitation period would have expired, the claimant would at least have had a reasonable prospect of successful reliance on section 32 (1) (b) Limitation Act 1980, to the effect that where relevant facts have been deliberately concealed the period of limitation does not run until the claimant has discovered the concealment or could with reasonable diligence have done so - the relevant fact being the existence and nature of the scheme deployed. I cannot accept, on that basis, that there was any substantial prejudice in the supposed loss of a limitation defence.