← All Authorities
Hong Kong limitation periodsprofessional negligence

Bodycote HIP Ltd v Buckenham

[2005] HKCA 273
JurisdictionHong Kong
CourtHK Court of Appeal
Year2005
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Determines when time begins to run for negligence claims under the Hong Kong Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347), applying accrual principles to latent damage.

Key Principle

limitation under the Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347); when time starts to run for negligence claims

Area of Law

Limitation

Related Cases

Wong Wai Man v Hospital Authority [2006] HKCFI 98

Addresses limitation period rules for latent damage in medical negligence claims in Hong Kong.

Law Society v Sephton and Co [2006] UKHL 22

A contingent liability does not constitute actionable damage for limitation purposes until the contingency materialises, so time does not run until then.

Pirelli General Cable Works Ltd v Oscar Faber and Partners [1983] 2 AC 1

In tort, a cause of action for latent damage accrues when physical damage occurs, not when the claimant discovers or could have discovered it.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Bodycote HIP Ltd v Buckenham and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Bodycote HIP Ltd v Buckenham