Taylor Hampton is acting for two of the five test claimants (former Strictly Come Dancing professional dancer, Camilla Sacre-Dallerup, and former business partner to Sophie Rhys-Jones and publicist, Murray Harkin) in respect of a Trial of a Preliminary Issue (“TPI”) listed for the next two weeks on the matter of limitation in the Mirror Newspapers Hacking Litigation (“MNHL”).
The question of limitation refers to the statutory time period within which a claimant must commence proceedings in respect of any claim they may have, the period for which differs depending on the cause of action but is 6 years in respect of claims for Misuse of Private Information (the cause of action relied upon by claimants in the MNHL litigation).
There are, however, exceptions to this general rule, such as cases involving deliberate concealment, where the limitation period may be extended or suspended. Under section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, the limitation period in cases of deliberate concealment does not begin until the claimant discovers or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the concealment.
Given that it is a feature of the MNHL that Claimants’ claims relate to alleged unlawful information gathering, including the publication of articles, which took place more than 6 years ago (typically during the late 90’s and 2000’s) and MGN accepts that it deliberately concealed such unlawful activity at the time it took place and subsequently, the issue ordered by the Court for determination at the TPI in respect of each claim is “whether the claim is statute barred by reason of the expiry of the postponed limitation period under s.32 of the Limitation Act 1980.”
Following a previous decision of the Court on the question of limitation in the MNHL litigation in the case of the Duke of Sussex v MGN, it is common ground that, due to admissions of unlawful activity first made by MGN in September 2014, a reasonably attentive individual at that time who had suffered “unexplained wrongs” at the hands of MGN would have discovered information which would have led them to take legal advice as to whether they had a worthwhile legal claim.
The Court will, however, now consider evidence from Claimant solicitors who acted in MNHL claims during this time as to what would have been considered a worthwhile legal claim at that point in the litigation and whether the limitation period is postponed until such time as a claim would have been considered worthwhile in this regard. It will also consider the position in relation to Claimants who did in fact have dealings with a solicitor or with the Metropolitan Police Service which meant that they did not consider that they had a worthwhile claim.
Likewise, the Court will consider the position in relation to individuals who did not believe they had suffered “unexplained wrongs”, for example because their private information never appeared in MGN’s newspapers at the time of the alleged unlawful information gathering or because they believed that the wrongs were accounted for by leaks from those close to them.
The significance of a Claimant living abroad at the time of publicity concerning allegations of phone hacking, including MGN’s admissions, will also be the subject of argument.
It is anticipated that the Court’s judgment on such matters will assist in the resolution not just of the five test cases but of all of the remaining claims in the 5th wave of the MNHL litigation.
Disclaimer
This publication is a general summary of the law. It is not intended to constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such.
Further Advice Or Assistance
If you are in need of legal advice, please contact our expert legal team on 0207 427 5970 or at [email protected].