Canada Square Operations Ltd (Appellant) v Potter (Respondent)
Case ID: 2021/0139
This case concerns the meaning and effect of section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, which postpones the commencement of a limitation period where a fact relevant to the claimant’s claim has been "deliberately concealed" by the defendant. The Supreme Court is asked to decide:
1. What does "deliberate" mean in this context? Is recklessness sufficient, or is actual knowledge required?
2. What does "conceal" mean in this context? Does it require the defendant to have breached a legal duty to disclose?
In July 2006, Mrs Potter took out a loan with Canada Square for just under £17,000. At Canada Square’s suggestion, Mrs Potter also took out insurance under a payment protection insurance policy (“the PPI Policy”). Mrs Potter was not told that over 95% of the premium for the PPI Policy was paid to Canada Square as its commission on the sale of the Policy (“the Commission”).
In December 2018, Mrs Potter issued a claim against Canada Square, to recover the sums that she had paid under the PPI Policy, plus interest. Canada Square argued that it was too late for Mrs Potter to bring this kind of claim, as section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980 imposed a six-year limitation period, which had long expired. Relying on section 32 of that Act, Mrs Potter argued that the six-year period did not begin to run until she found out about the Commission in 2018.
The County Court decided that section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 applied and ordered Canada Square to pay Mrs Potter £7,953. Canada Square appealed, unsuccessfully, to the High Court and then to the Court of Appeal. Canada Square now appeals to the Supreme Court.
Canada Square Operations Ltd
Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales, Lord Lloyd–Jones
Hearing start date
14 June 2022
Hearing finish date
15 June 2022
|14 June 2022||Morning session||Afternoon session|
|15 June 2022||Morning session||Afternoon session|
Future Judgment Update
Please note that appeal in the matter of Canada Square Operations Ltd (Appellant) v Potter (Respondent) has been heard by the Supreme Court and is currently awaiting judgment.
As soon as the judgment hand-down date is confirmed, it will be published on the Future judgments page of this website. As a very broad indication, judgments tend to follow between three to nine months after the conclusion of the appeal hearing, although in some cases it may be earlier than that. Information about judgment hand-downs is usually announced one week in advance. We are unable to give any indication of the likely hand-down date for judgments not listed on the Future judgments page.