The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their counterclaim as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.
The appellants argued that the limitation period was suspended under s. 52 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, because an arbitration had been commenced via correspondence, or alternatively, that the respondent was estopped from pleading a limitations defence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the parties' correspondence merely proposed an arbitration agreement and did not commence an arbitration under s. 23 of the Arbitration Act, 1991.
The court also found no evidence to support an estoppel claim.
