Canada Square Operations Ltd v Potter
Decision date: 15 November 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKSC 41
Court: United Kingdom Supreme Court
Insurance classification confidence: high
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
A short description of the case, material issue, and outcome where supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this overview: high
This appeal concerned whether the Limitation Act 1980 sections 32(1) and 32(2) postponed the start of the six-year limitation period for a borrower’s claim arising from non‑disclosure of PPI commission. The Supreme Court held that section 32(1) applied because the lender had deliberately concealed the existence and amount of the commission, but section 32(2) did not apply because the lender had not been shown to have known it was committing a breach of duty. The result was that the claim was not time‑barred and the defendant’s appeal was dismissed.
Ratio decidendi
The legal reasoning necessary to the outcome, where it can safely be identified from the judgment.
AI confidence in this ratio summary: high
Section 32(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 can postpone the limitation period where a defendant has deliberately concealed facts relevant to the claimant’s right of action (here, the conscious decision not to disclose commission); by contrast, section 32(2) requires that the defendant knew he was committing, or intended to commit, a breach of duty, and “deliberate” in s32(2) does not include mere recklessness or awareness of exposure to a claim.
Obiter dicta
Judicial observations that were not necessary to the outcome, where they can safely be identified.
AI confidence in this obiter summary: medium
The judgment contains observations about the broader practical and policy implications of extending limitation exposure (for example, the effect on professionals and indemnity insurance) which are not necessary to the decision.
Warning
The automated summary was prepared from the beginning and end of a long judgment; consult the original decision for the complete reasoning. The middle of the judgment was omitted; this may omit detailed intermediate reasoning and fuller exposition of arguments and authorities.