The Queen’s Bench Division handed down judgement in the case of Azaz v Denton [2009] EWHC 1759 (QB) on 21st July 2009. The claimant had joined the second defendant, Self Healing Meditation Healing Centre (‘the centre’) in 1992, handing over all of his possessions and substantial amounts of cash, whilst abandoning his career as a medical practitioner. The claimant sought delivery-up of his possessions and claimed damages for personal injury, breach of duty in tort and contract and equitable relief to set aside a transaction entered into on the basis of undue influence.

In considering preliminary issues of limitation the Court, applying Shade v Compton [2000] Lloyd's Rep PN 81 held that section 11(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 was not limited to a cause of action, but to the whole action. Where a claim had a personal injury element that was statute-barred as a result of section 11(1), the whole action to the extent that it was based upon the same breach of duty either in contract or tort must be struck out. The court went on to find that the exercise of undue influence was irrelevant as to whether the circumstances in section 32(1)(b) of the Act were satisfied. The claimant could not rely on fraudulent concealment as he had not provided evidence to support the notion that facts had been withheld from him.

Confirming the principles laid out in Robinson v St Helens [2003] PIQR 9, the court taking into account the general circumstances of the case, the issue of proportionality and the prospect of success refused to exercise their general discretion to allow the claims based on breach of duty to proceed under section 33 of the Act.

The court refused to allow the claim for equitable relief under the doctrine of laches. The acts of the parties in the period between the transaction and the date of the claim was highly material ((1874) LR5PC 221); applying Goldsworthy v Brickell [1987] 1 Ch 378 the court had to consider the length of the delay, the nature of the acts done and the balance of justice/ injustice. The question was does the delay induce a party to suppose that the transaction will not be challenged.