Agia vs Skipton Building Society

This case involved an appeal by Mr. Tajudeen Adigun Agia against the decision to strike out his claim against Skipton Building Society as being statute barred.

TLDR:

• Mr. Agia appealed against the decision to strike out his claim.
• The claim was deemed statute barred due to the limitation period starting in 1990.
• The court upheld the original decision, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant, Mr. Tajudeen Adigun Agia, opened a deposit bank account with Skipton Building Society in 1987. In 1990, he made a demand for the money held in his account and requested the account to be closed. The building society issued a cheque which Mr. Agia claimed to have misplaced and only rediscovered in 2020.

Upon rediscovery, Mr. Agia requested a replacement cheque from Skipton Building Society, which was denied. The building society argued that a replacement cheque was already issued and cashed in 1990, and thus no funds were owed to Mr. Agia. Additionally, they raised a limitation defense, asserting that the claim was statute barred.

At a preliminary hearing, DJ Skalskyj-Reynolds struck out Mr. Agia's claim, ruling that the limitation period started in 1990 when the first demand was made. The judge emphasized that a demand for repayment is a condition precedent to repayment and that the limitation period runs from the date of the first demand.

Mr. Agia appealed the decision on two grounds: that the limitation period should start from the second demand in 2020, and that the initial demand was honored, thus no cause of action existed in 1990. The appeal was heard by HHJ Malek.

HHJ Malek dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower court's interpretation of the law. The judge cited the case of Joachimson v Swiss Bank Corporation, which established that the limitation period runs from the date of the first demand. The judge also referenced the case of Bank of Baroda v Mahomed, affirming that repeated demands do not reset the limitation period.

The judge concluded that the claim was statute barred as the cause of action accrued in 1990. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original decision to strike out the claim was upheld.

Legal representatives: Mr. Makinde (instructed by Sa Law Llp Ltd) for the Claimant, Ms. Chelsea Carter (instructed by Walker Morris LLP) for the Defendant.

Judicial Panel: HHJ Malek

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EW Misc 14 (CC)