2 total
Professional negligence claim against lawyer not discovered until underlying defendants pleaded missed limitation period.
The appellants retained the respondent lawyer to represent them in a motor vehicle accident claim.
The respondent issued the statement of claim more than two years after the accident.
The appellants subsequently sued the respondent for professional negligence.
The respondent successfully moved for summary judgment on the basis that the professional negligence action was statute-barred.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the summary judgment, finding that under s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act, 2002, the appellants did not discover their claim against the respondent until the defendants in the underlying motor vehicle action amended their statement of defence to plead a limitations defence.
Summary judgment granted; malpractice claim dismissed as statute-barred.
The defendant lawyer moved for summary judgment dismissing a malpractice action brought by a former client arising from the settlement of motor vehicle accident litigation.
The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and unjust enrichment, claiming he did not consent to the settlement or signed documents under duress and incapacity.
The court held that the action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 because the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the alleged cause of action years before issuing the claim.
The plaintiff provided no evidence supporting allegations of forgery, coercion, or incapacity sufficient to suspend the limitation period.
Summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.
