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 the decision to strike out his claim as statute-barred.
• The court examined the limitation period applicable to banking contracts.
• The appeal was dismissed, upholding the original decision.

The claimant, Mr. Tajudeen Adigun Agia, opened a deposit account with Skipton Building Society in 1987. In 1990, he requested the closure of his account and the return of his funds. The building society issued a cheque, which Agia claimed to have misplaced and only rediscovered in 2020, prompting him to request a replacement cheque.

Skipton Building Society argued that a replacement cheque had been issued and cashed in 1990, and that no funds were owed to Agia. Additionally, they claimed that the action was statute-barred, as the limitation period had expired.

The lower court, presided over by DJ Skalskyj-Reynolds, struck out Agia's claim, ruling that the limitation period began in 1990 when the first demand for payment was made. The court held that the limitation period for banking contracts starts from the date of the first demand, not from subsequent demands.

On appeal, HHJ Malek reviewed the decision. The appellant argued that the limitation period should start from the second demand made in 2020, as the first demand was honored. However, the court found that the limitation period began with the first demand in 1990, regardless of whether it was honored or not.

The court referred to established case law, including Joachimson v Swiss Bank Corporation and Bank of Baroda v Mahomed, to support its decision. It emphasized that the limitation period for banking contracts starts from the date of the first demand for payment.

HHJ Malek concluded that the lower court's decision was correct and dismissed the appeal. The court upheld the ruling that Agia's claim was statute-barred and that the limitation period began in 1990.

This case highlights the importance of understanding the limitation periods in banking contracts and the implications of making demands for payment. Legal practitioners should note the significance of the first demand in determining the start of the limitation period.

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 5 (CC)