Section 14A was inserted into the Limitation Act 1980 by the Latent Damage Act 1986. It responds to the difficulty exposed by Cartledge v E Jopling & Sons Ltd [1963] AC 758 and Pirelli General Cable Works Ltd v Oscar Faber & Partners [1983] 2 AC 1, where a claimant's cause of action could accrue, and expire, before the claimant could reasonably have known anything was wrong.
The section applies to actions for damages for negligence, other than personal injury claims. It provides an alternative period of three years from the starting date, which applies where that period expires later than the ordinary six years from accrual. It does not shorten the six-year period; it can only extend it.
The starting date is the earliest date on which the claimant had both the knowledge required for bringing an action for damages in respect of the relevant damage, and a right to bring such an action. Section 14A(6) to (8) breaks that down. The claimant must know:
Section 14A(9) is important and often overlooked: knowledge that the acts or omissions did or did not, as a matter of law, involve negligence is irrelevant. The claimant does not need to have been told by a lawyer that the adviser was negligent. Knowing the factual essence of the complaint is enough.
Section 14A(10) attributes to the claimant knowledge that could reasonably have been acquired from facts observable or ascertainable by the claimant, or ascertainable with the help of appropriate expert advice that it was reasonable to seek. A claimant who sits on obvious warning signs cannot rely on subjective ignorance. A claimant who could only have discovered the problem by commissioning an investigation that no reasonable person in that position would have commissioned is in a different position.
Latent damage is the characteristic risk of the built environment. A cracked slab, an inadequate movement joint, a fire-stopping defect or an under-designed foundation may sit unnoticed for years. Practices covered by the architects PI pillar and the engineers PI pillar are exposed to a limitation position that is set by the moment of discovery rather than by the date of the design.
The same logic reaches advisory work. A tax structure that fails on enquiry, a provision in a set of accounts that later proves unsupportable, or a valuation basis that only becomes visible on a subsequent transaction can all produce a starting date long after the file closed. Firms on the accountants PI pillar should treat the six-year period as a floor rather than a ceiling.
Section 14A is the main reason a run-off period of six years can leave a gap. A claim founded on knowledge acquired in year six may be issued in year nine. Professional bodies set minimum run-off terms with that in mind, and the practical question for a retiring principal is whether the minimum term matches the realistic tail on the work actually done. Apex Insurance Brokers works through that comparison rather than quoting the minimum by default.
Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Firm reference number 724952. This entry is general information, not advice on any particular policy.