English limitation law is in a state of flux. As increasing judicial attention has been focused on the search for palatable methods to limit the duty of care in the tort of negligence, little care has been taken to consider the indirect effects on the temporal restrictions imposed on the right to bring suit. The result is that the inter-relationship between the principles of liability and actionability has never been more uncertain. Two recent decisions have shed some light on the rules governing the running of time in contract and tort, components of the law of obligations which have given rise to the more thorny issues in this crucial but often ignored aspect of civil litigation. Nitrigin Eireann Teoranta v. Inco Alloys Ltd.1 provides an initial indication of how Pirelli General Cable Works Ltd. v. Oscar Faber & Partners,2 a watershed in the limitation of actions, will be dealt with in the post-Murphy v. Brentwood District Council 3 negligence climate; and Société Commerciale de Réassurance v. ERAS (International) Ltd.4 confirms an earlier and very significant interpretation of the Limitation Act 1980, as amended by the Latent Damage Act 1986. The inquiry as to whether a cause of action exists, its categorization, the classification of harm inflicted on the claimant and the search for accrual dates have all had a fundamental impact on the time constraints curtailing the ability to sue. This article analyses the ramifications of the important judicial developments that have taken place over the last few years for the limitation principles enunciated in Pirelli and those embodied in the latent damage legislation. Of greater significance than the limited but valuable illumination provided by the two most recent authorities is that they have made it abundantly clear that reconsideration and reform of both common law and statutory principles of limitation must now be recognized as a priority of the utmost urgency.

THE DATE OF ACCRUAL OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION

Pirelli and The Beginning

It will be remembered that in Pirelli time was held to have commenced to run in a negligence action from the date that undiscoverable cracks developed in a chimney.