In a recent case, the High Court considered the issue of limitation in allegations of fraud.
The events upon which the claimant relied happened around 20 years ago. The primary limitation period had expired before the claim form had been issued, but the claimant relied on section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980.
Under section 32, where any fact relevant to the claimant’s right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant, the commencement of the running of the period of limitation will be postponed until the concealment is discovered, or could with reasonable diligence be discovered.
The argument was unsuccessful in this case, but it turned on a technicality, which is subject to appeal in the Supreme Court (Bilta (UK) Ltd v. Tradition Financial Services Ltd). The outcome of that case is likely to impact the next steps in this matter.
Brief facts
Thomas Flohr is a Swiss billionaire, and the founder and chairman of Vista Global. The claim against him was brought by Frontiers Capital I Limited Partnership, a company controlled by Tim Horlick, who was a former business partner of Mr Flohr.
Mr Flohr applied for summary judgment on Frontiers Capital I Limited Partnership’s claim, or for an order striking it out, principally on the ground that the events complained of took place in the period from 2002 to 2005, and the claimant’s reliance on section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 was unsustainable and/or has no real prospect of his success.
In response, the claimant made a counter-application for permission to amend the claim to introduce a claim in fraudulent misrepresentation.
Read the full judgment here: Frontiers Capital I Limited Partnership v Thomas Flohr [2025] EWHC 678 (Ch)
The limitation issues
Two questions were central to the position on limitation:
- Did the defendant deliberately conceal a fact relevant to the right of action pursued by the claimant?
- Did the claimant discover the concealment, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it, more than six years before the claim was issued?
The defendant’s contention was that the facts relied on by the claimant were known to it, or could have been discovered by it with reasonable diligence, at all material times.
Indeed, the court found that Frontiers Capital I LP had enough knowledge to pursue the claim from November 2013.
However, the limitation case is based on a point of law which is already subject to an appeal to the English Supreme Court in the case of Bilta (UK) Ltd v. Tradition Financial Services Ltd. With that in mind, the High Court is likely to extend the time for Frontiers Capital I LP to bring an appeal against the decision on the limitation ground, pending the outcome of the Supreme Court decision in Bilta.
Introducing allegations of deceit
In response to the defendant’s summary judgment application, the claimant issued an application for permission to amend the particulars of claim, to introduce new factual aversions in support of an allegation of fraudulent misrepresentation.
Master Brightwell considered that the arguments put forward by the claimant in support of the proposed new deceit claim were “prima facie substantial.” He continued, saying “If the question for the court were merely one of whether they were coherent and properly particularised, that question would be answered in the affirmative.”
However, the judge did not consider that the proposed amendments arose out of the same or substantially the same facts as those which were already in issue in the existing claim. The claimant was therefore not entitled to amend the particulars of claim so as to introduce the plea in fraud.
Given that the court found that the fraud claim was properly pleaded, and that the fraud the claimant alleged was committed against it by Mr. Flohr’s dishonesty was likely not discovered until 2022, it is open to the claimant to bring a new separate claim against Mr. Flohr.
