Limitation Period and Date of Knowledge
Limitation Periods in Professional Negligence Claims: Section 14A, Date of Knowledge and Recent Case Law
Introduction
This article provides a detailed analysis of the limitation periods applicable to professional negligence claims under English law. It focuses in particular on the operation of section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980, which introduces a statutory extension where the claimant acquires knowledge of the claim at a date later than the original accrual of the cause of action.
In the context of professional negligence, including claims against solicitors, accountants, surveyors and other professionals, the usual limitation period is six years. However, that primary period may not begin until measurable damage is sustained, and in certain circumstances, may be extended under section 14A, which introduces a further three years from the claimant’s date of knowledge. This provision is particularly relevant in cases involving latent damage, where the consequences of the professional’s error may only become apparent long after the act or omission occurred.
This article explores how English courts have interpreted these provisions in recent years, with reference to decisions such as Haward v Fawcetts (A Firm) [2006] UKHL 9, Witcomb v J Keith Park Solicitors [2023] EWCA Civ 326, and Lonsdale v Wedlake Bell LLP [2024] EWHC 712 (KB). It also considers the interaction of section 14A with fraud and concealment under section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, and how those provisions apply where a professional has deliberately concealed their wrongdoing.
Given the frequency of disputes over when a professional negligence limitation period begins, and how long a claimant has to sue for solicitor negligence or surveyor negligence, this article offers guidance for both potential claimants and legal practitioners.
If you believe you may have a claim against a professional but are unsure whether it is out of time, we can advise you on limitation periods and your legal options. We act in claims against solicitors, surveyors, architects, and accountants. Learn more about our work on our Professional Negligence page.
Contact Carruthers Law today by telephone on 0151 541 2040 or 0203 846 2862, email us at info@carruthers-law.co.uk, or use our contact form.
Primary Limitation Periods in Professional Negligence
Under English law, the time limit for bringing a civil claim is set by the Limitation Act 1980. For professional negligence (for example, claims against professionals, accountants, or surveyors), the primary limitation period is generally six years from the date the cause of action accrued. In a contract-based claim, e.g. a professional breaching a retainer term, time runs from the breach of contract itself. In tort, negligence, the six-year period runs from when the claimant first suffers actual damage as a result of the professional’s breach. Importantly, damage, and thus the start of the clock, may occur later than the negligent act. For instance, if a professional negligently lets a legal deadline lapse, the client’s actual loss may only crystallise once the underlying claim is lost, at that point, the six-year countdown in negligence begins.
It is possible for a claimant to have concurrent claims in contract and tort against a professional. These may accrue at different times: a professionals’ contract claim accrues on the date of the wrongful act or omission, no knowledge of loss is required, whereas a negligence claim accrues only when the client suffers a measurable loss. The limitation clock does not wait for the client to discover the problem; in ordinary cases it runs from breach or damage even if the claimant is oblivious. This can lead to obvious unfairness if the negligence was latent, not immediately apparent. To mitigate this, the law provides special extensions which are critical in professional negligence cases, discussed next.
Section 14A and Latent Damage: The 3-Year “Date of Knowledge” Extension
Section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 creates an important exception for negligence claims where the claimant did not initially know about the claim. Commonly called the latent damage provision, it allows an action for negligence (other than personal injury) to be brought within three years from the date the claimant acquired the relevant knowledge of the claim, if that knowledge came later than the usual accrual date. In effect, the deadline becomes the later of (a) six years from the negligence/damage or (b) three years from the claimant’s date of knowledge. Crucially, this extended three-year period is capped by a 15-year long-stop from the date of the negligent act or omission. In other words, no claim can be brought more than 15 years after the wrongdoing, however late it was discovered.
What counts as knowledge to start the three-year clock? Section 14A(6) defines it as the claimant having knowledge of the material facts about the damage, and knowledge that the damage was at least attributable to the negligence of the defendant. The claimant need not know every detail of the legal wrong, nor have definitive proof of negligence, it suffices that they know something significant has gone awry and caused loss, in a way that would lead a reasonable person to investigate further. The House of Lords in Haward v Fawcetts (A Firm) [2006] UKHL 9 explained that time starts running only when the claimant is aware of a real possibility that their loss was caused by the defendant’s act or omission. In other words, the clock doesn’t start at the first hint of trouble; it starts when the claimant has enough information that a reasonable person would consider blaming the professional and seeking advice.
Knowledge” under Section 14A has an objective element. It includes not only what the particular claimant actually knew, but also what they ought reasonably to have known, given the facts observable to them at the time. Claimants cannot indefinitely ignore signs of negligence. If, with reasonable diligence or advice, they could have discovered the problem sooner, the law may deem them to have had constructive knowledge earlier. However, courts also recognise that professional negligence can be complex and technical.
A lay client is not expected to know the full cause without expert input. This was illustrated in cases like Equitix EEEF Biomass 2 Ltd v Fox Williams LLP [2021] EWHC 2531 (Comm), where a fund suffered financial losses in a project but did not realise their professionals’ due diligence was deficient until an expert investigation revealed the errors. The court held the claim was in time under Section 14A: although problems with the project arose earlier, the claimant lacked the necessary knowledge of negligence until expert advice clarified the cause and extent of the damage. In short, the Section 14A clock starts when the claimant knows enough of the who and how, that they have sustained a loss and that it was, at least arguably, caused by the professional’s mistake.
Recent Case Law on Section 14A (2023,2025)
In recent years, courts have grappled with Section 14A in a variety of professional contexts, refining how the date of knowledge test is applied.
Haward v Fawcetts (A Firm) [2006] UKHL 9,
While not new, this House of Lords decision remains the leading authority on knowledge. The claimant invested in a business based on negligent financial advice, suffering loss years later. He sued outside the six-year period, claiming later discovery. The Lords held the claim was time-barred, the claimant had enough knowledge earlier to realise something was wrong with the investment, even if he didn’t yet know it was negligent advice. The key principle is that a claimant doesn’t need to know for certain that the professional was negligent, it is sufficient to know that something went awry with the outcome that could be attributable to the professional. Once armed with such knowledge of possible negligence, the claimant must act within three years.
Witcomb v J Keith Park Solicitors [2023] EWCA Civ 326,
In this Court of Appeal case, a man settled a personal injury claim in 2009, not knowing his professionals had failed to advise him about the option of provisional damages. Years later, his medical condition dramatically worsened beyond what the settlement anticipated. Only at that point did he realise the earlier legal advice might have been negligent. He sued his solicitors in 2020. The solicitors argued he was out of time, but the Court of Appeal disagreed. Until his health deteriorated significantly, the claimant lacked reason to suspect negligence in the 2009 settlement. The date of knowledge was when his symptoms worsened and the legal significance of not having a provisional damages facility became clear. Because he sued within three years of that point, the claim was allowed. Witcomb confirms that when the alleged negligence is failure to advise, time may not run until the adverse consequences of that bad advice manifest and the client can appreciate that a different course should have been taken. Lack of awareness of legal rights, here, the right to claim further damages if things got worse, can delay the clock, so long as the claimant acts promptly once the omission comes to light.
Equitix EEEF Biomass 2 Ltdv Fox Williams [2021] EWHC 2531 (TCC),
The claimant fund bought a biomass energy project; years later the project ran into serious financial trouble. They alleged their professionals had negligently failed to warn of certain risks in the acquisition. The defendants argued the fund knew of problems more than three years before suing. However, the High Court found the claim in time under Section 14A. The claimant did not have knowledge of the essential facts until independent experts investigated the failure and linked it to issues that should have been spotted by the lawyers. General signs of trouble with the investment were not enough to start time; the claimant needed expert input to realise those troubles were due to the professionals’ earlier omissions. This case demonstrates that in complex professional transactions, a claimant is not expected to pinpoint negligence without some expert insight, vague concerns or a gut feeling that something was wrong are insufficient to trigger the limitation clock.
Continuing Duties vs. One-Off Acts: Lonsdale and Al Sadik (2024)
Two contrasting High Court cases in 2024 examined scenarios where professionals remained involved after a mistake, one where they tried to fix the error, and one where they denied any error. These cases explore whether ongoing professional duties can delay time running, and what exactly constitutes knowledge when the client is aware of a problem but is led to believe it might be corrected.
Lonsdale v Wedlake Bell LLP [2024] EWHC 712 (KB),
The claimants were trustees and beneficiaries of a family trust. In 2011, the trust’s professionals, Wedlake Bell, a law firm, negligently failed to correct a defect in the trust deed, with the result that an opportunity to fix the trust before a beneficiary’s 25th birthday was missed. This admitted negligence turned what had been a salvageable situation into an irreversible loss. Crucially, when the professionals realised their error, they informed Mr. Lonsdale, the settlor, in 2018 and encouraged him to wait while they looked into putting things right. During this period, however, the three-year clock from Mr. Lonsdale’s date of knowledge may have been running. Ultimately, Mr. Lonsdale did seek independent advice in January 2019 and new professionals issued a negligence claim. The defendants tried to strike out the claim as time-barred, arguing Mr. Lonsdale knew of the problem too early.
But the High Court refused to strike it out. The judge found it was not clear that Mr. Lonsdale had acquired sufficient knowledge before January 2019 to start time running. Only when Wedlake Bell provided a full analysis of what had gone wrong, in 2019, and effectively admitted the implications did he truly appreciate the extent of the damage and the need to claim. Thus, suing within three years from that point was arguably in time. Lonsdale shows that if a professional acknowledges a mistake and the client believes it will be rectified, the client may not be treated as knowing they have an actionable loss until it becomes clear the fix hasn’t worked. Clients might also argue that the professionals owed a continuing duty to correct the error, postponing the cause of action, though the court in Lonsdale didn’t need to definitively decide that issue because the knowledge point sufficed to let the case proceed.
Al Sadik v Clyde & Co LLP [2024] EWHC 818 (Comm),
A very different outcome arose in this case, where a businessman claimed his lawyers negligently mishandled a litigation, causing him to lose a valuable claim. The alleged negligence occurred in 2011 when his legal team filed a crucial application too late, leading the court to refuse an amendment that would have added new claims. The primary six-year period had long expired by the time Mr. Al Sadik sued in 2021, so he invoked Section 14A’s three-year extension. He argued he didn’t have the requisite knowledge of negligence until the litigation finally ended in 2018, and even contended that the lawyers had a continuing duty to advise him of their own mistakes up to the end of their retainer.
The Commercial Court firmly rejected these arguments. It found that Mr. Al Sadik knew he had suffered a loss by 2011, specifically, as soon as his late application was dismissed and he lost the opportunity to pursue those new claims. At that point, he was aware that a significant part of his case was irrevocably lost due to the lawyers’ conduct, and he even faced an adverse costs order, paying the opponent’s costs for the failed application.This was enough to start the clock: a reasonable person in his position would have realised something had gone wrong and inquired into the lawyers’ handling.
The court distinguished Witcomb, noting that Al Sadik didn’t need a lawyer to tell him his situation was damaged, he personally experienced the loss when the court threw out his new claims. Moreover, the judge was willing to assume that professionals should take care to inform a client if they realise they were negligent, but such a duty is not continuing in a way that resets limitation each day of the ongoing relationship. In other words, a breach of duty occurs at the time of the negligent act/omission; the mere fact the professional continues to represent the client afterward does not postpone the accrual of the cause of action or continuously renew a duty to confess past errors. The result in Al Sadik was that the claim was time-barred, the claimant’s knowledge in 2011 meant the three-year period expired in 2014, long before he filed the suit in 2021.
Together, Lonsdale and Al Sadik highlight the fact-sensitive nature of date of knowledge inquiries. In Lonsdale, the client was aware of a problem but believed due to the professionals’ reassurances it could be fixed, so he arguably did not appreciate a final loss until later. In Al Sadik, the client immediately felt the consequences of his lawyers’ misstep and so was expected to act with that knowledge. These cases also touch on the idea of professionals’ duty to advise on their own negligence.. Generally, if a professional discovers a serious mistake in handling a matter, professional ethics and prudence dictate that they inform the client. A failure to do so that is intentional might even amount to a deliberate concealment, which brings us to the final topic: how deliberate concealment affects limitation.
Fraud and Concealment: Section 32 and “Deliberate” Breach of Duty
The Limitation Act provides an additional safeguard for claimants in cases of fraud or concealment by the defendant. Under Section 32(1)(b), if the defendant has deliberately concealed any fact relevant to the claimant’s right of action, the limitation period does not start until the claimant discovers, or could reasonably have discovered, the concealment. In plain terms, a defendant cannot benefit from hiding their wrongdoing. This rule often applies where a wrongdoer actively covers up their negligence or withholds information, preventing the claimant from learning of the claim. Notably, deliberate concealment in law includes situations where the defendant’s original act was itself a deliberate breach of duty that is unlikely to be discovered for some time. For example, if a professional knowingly does something wrong and keeps quiet, that very act can count as concealing the facts of the breach.
Canada Square Operations Ltd v Potter [2023] UKSC 41
This case clarified the meaning of deliberately concealed. The Court adopted a straightforward approach: concealment simply requires the defendant to withhold or hide a relevant fact, and deliberate means the act is done consciously and intentionally. Crucially, the Supreme Court held that it does not matter whether the defendant had a legal duty to disclose the fact, all that matters is that they intentionally kept the claimant in the dark. In Canada Square, a lender had failed to tell a borrower about a high commission fee on a loan related to PPI insurance, the borrower only learned of it years later and sued for unfair relationship. The lender argued the claim was out of time, but the Court found the lender had deliberately concealed the commission, so time was postponed until the borrower discovered it. This ruling overturned a narrower Court of Appeal view and confirms that any intentional hiding of facts by a defendant will delay the limitation clock. By extension, if a professional realises they have committed negligence and decides not to inform the client, that omission could amount to deliberate concealment. In such a case, the client’s time to sue would be extended under Section 32 until they actually find out the truth, for instance, through another lawyer or external event. Unlike Section 14A’s long-stop, there is no 15-year long-stop for fraud or concealment, a cover-up can potentially postpone time without a fixed backstop. However, the burden is on the claimant to plead and prove the concealment and that it was intentional, and these situations are relatively rare.
Conclusion
For professional negligence and analogous claims against other professionals, the rule is simple: you have six years from the breach or damage to sue. The complications arise when the client discovers the problem late. Section 14A provides a vital lifeline in such cases. Recent cases show the courts taking a practical, fact-specific approach to what a claimant knew or ought to have known. Did the client have enough information to link their loss to the professional’s error? Were they being reassured or misled, or did they simply fail to connect the dots? There is no uniform answer, each case turns on its facts, and judges will closely examine the timeline of events and the reasonableness of the claimant’s state of knowledge.
In summary, anyone dealing with a potential professional negligence claim must keep a close eye on the calendar and the facts known. If you suspect something was done wrong, the safe course is to get legal advice early, limitation can be a potent weapon for defendants, and missing the deadline is usually fatal to a claim. The law does offer relief for those who genuinely couldn’t have known of their claim, and it refuses to reward professionals who conceal their misdeeds. But these exceptions have limits.
If you believe you may have a claim against a professional but are unsure whether it is out of time, we can advise you on limitation periods and your legal options. We act in claims against solicitors, surveyors, architects, and accountants. Learn more about our work on our Professional Negligence page.
Contact Carruthers Law today by telephone on 0151 541 2040 or 0203 846 2862, email us at info@carruthers-law.co.uk, or use our contact form.