header-logo header-logo

Red light for stale claims

06 March 2019
Issue: 7831 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Family
printer mail-detail
Excusable delays should be ‘measured in weeks’

Family lawyers will be urgently reviewing limitation deadlines after the High Court rejected a claim filed nearly 17 months out of date.

In Cowan v Foreman [2019] EWHC 349 (Fam), Mr Justice Mostyn held that a widow could not bring a claim for financial provision from her husband’s £16m estate because she was out of time.

‘In my judgment, absent highly exceptional factors, in the modern era of civil ligation the limit of excusable delay should be measured in weeks, or, at most, a few months,’ Mostyn J said, in his judgment.

The widow wished to challenge the terms of the late husband’s will, which placed the bulk of his assets into two trusts. She argued that she had been unaware of the six-month time limit in the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 and that both parties had agreed to a time extension, and asked the judge to exercise his discretion.

Mostyn J declined, however, stating in his judgment: ‘Litigation is intrinsically stressful and extremely expensive.

‘The time limit must be there to protect beneficiaries from being vexed by a stale claim, whether or not the estate has been distributed. Similarly, the time limit must be there to spare the court from being burdened with stale claims which should have been made much earlier.’

Richard Kershaw, family law partner at Hunters Solicitors, said Mostyn J’s comments will ‘cause concern and a lot of urgent reviewing of files by lawyers over the next few days as they consider approaching limitation deadlines, and is likely to see a sharp uptick in claims being issued.

‘The judge is well known for his robust comments and shaping of the law. He has made it clear that agreements between lawyers to, effectively, waive the six-month deadline for starting such claims, must stop, saying “I suggest that it is a practice that should come to an immediate end. It is not for the parties to give away time that belongs to the court… the claim should be issued in time and then the court invited to stay the proceedings while the negotiations are pursued”.’

Issue: 7831 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Family
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll