Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

In the case of Bell v.

Peter Browne, the issue is concerned with the date of the cause of action which accrued when the damage suffered by the plaintiff for tort and as for contract it depends on the date when either one of the party breached the contract. Apart from that, this case also concerned whether the action of the plaintiff was statute-barred in filing the proceeding against the defendant. This case had been appealed for its decision. The parties involved in this case were, the plaintiff/appellant known as Mr. Bell and the defendant/ respondent known as Peter Browne & Co (firm) The fact of this case starts in the year of 1978 where Mr. Bell asked his solicitors to transfer the matrimonial home into his wifes sole name on 1st September of 1978, the house was duly transferred to the wife and he was to receive a 1/6 of the proceeds of sale which were to be protected by a trust deed or mortgage. The solicitor of the plaintiff (defendants) had drafted the documents and the transaction and it was completed, however there is no declaration of trust or mortgage was prepared or executed. In the year of 1979 Plaintiffs marriage with his wife was ended and subsequently in the year of 1986, the wife eventually sold the house and she spent all the proceeds thereby depriving the plaintiff of his one-sixth interest in the proceeds of the sale. After few years (more than 6 years to be exact is 9 years), the plaintiff started to filed proceedings against the solicitors by issuing a writ against his former solicitors in the year 1987. The plaintiff claimed damages for breach of contract and professional negligence by a firm of solicitors in failing to prepare any document regarding the agreement concerning the transfer of house and 1/6 interests. Later, in 1988 the defendant applied to strike out the action on the ground that it was time-barred under sec 2 and 5 of the Limitation Act 1980. Apart from that, the defendant solicitors also argued that the cause of action arose at the date of the transfer (1978). Since the writ was not issued until 1987, cause of action arose more than 6 years before the plaintiffs claim was statute barred. The court dismissed the plaintiffs appeal with cost and held that for breach of contract, the breach occurred when defendant failed to prepare or execute a formal declaration of trust and six-year limitation period began to run from the date of the breach in September 1978. The cause of action had completed when the solicitor had failed to carry out his duty to secure the beneficial interest of Mr. Bell.

The limitation period expired before the issue of the writ in 1987 and since the issuance of writ in 1987 was nine years after the cause of action had accrued. Therefore the action brought by Mr. Bell for breach of contract was time barred. As for tort in negligence, the court held that cause of action did not accrue until damage was suffered by the plaintiff and in his case, plaintiff sustained damage when the transfer was executed notwithstanding that defendants failure to protect the plaintiffs interest. Cause of action began to run from the date on which the negligence act or omission occurred and damage was suffered. The limitation period expired after 6 years. Therefore, action by Mr.Bell in 1987 for tort of negligence was also time-barred.