The aim of the series on limitation “myths” is to be succinct and point out dangers. This is only a starting point. Be aware of the dangers – but there can be exceptions.

I am grateful to Julian Chamberlayne from Stewarts who wrote to me in relation to the post on accidents abroad. With his permission I set out his observations:


1       The Foreign Limitation Act does not of itself prescribe that limitation will be of the place where the accident occurs.  Rather it confirms that the limitation period will be in line with the applicable law.  In practice that is where we would always start, usually with either reference to Rome II, for torts or Rome I for contract.  Whilst Article 4(1) of Rome II does prescribe the default position is that the applicable law is where the tort occurred, Articles 4(2) and 4(3) contain some important exceptions which would be worth bringing to the attention of your readers.  In particular article 4(2) applies where both claimant and defendant are both habitually resident in the same country, a scenario which does occur with some frequency in relation to European road traffic accidents, skiing and other holiday related accidents.
2. Claims for and against tour operators in England and Wales under the Package Tour Regulations are brought under the laws (inc limitation periods) of E&W. Matt Chapman, Sarah Prager and Jack Harding were all strongly of the view that the Saggerson textbook does not suggest otherwise. That text book is essential reading for anyone conducting overseas accident claims.
3       Whilst not strictly relevant to the question posed by your blog, what is limitation law for an international accident, it may have been worth observing that for actions brought in the English courts, but subject to an overseas applicable law, are still subject to English procedural rules (the CPR).