Canada Square Operations Ltd v Potter  UKSC 41 CCI Case Note
William Hopkin dissects a Supreme Court decision on the postponement of limitation periods, where there has been non-disclosure of facts by the defendant. Whilst in the context of consumer credit, the principles are of broad application.
In Canada Square Operations Ltd v Potter  UKSC 41, the lender arranged ancillary insurance for the borrower. It didn’t tell the borrower that it received a commission of 95% of the value of the premium, from the insurer. The claim was brought many years after the end of the agreement, but did the lender’s non-disclosure of the commission entitle the borrower to rely on s.32 of the Limitation Act 1980, to postpone the limitation period? How is s.32 to be interpreted?
William’s insightful analysis provides a useful 5-minute guide to this important Supreme Court case, addressing limitation, non-disclosure and consumer finance.
New Square’s barristers regularly deliver in-house training and seminars covering our specialist practice areas, please contact email@example.com for details, or to request a talk on this topic.