Where a plaintiff enters into a disadvantageous commercial arrangement but suffers no actual loss of money or property for several years, the question of when damage first accrues for limitation purposes requires a global comparison of the true value of what was obtained against the true value of what was given up, assessed at the time of entry into the arrangement. Neither the giving up of secure employment, the lack of proper documentation, nor the mortgaging of property as part of an overall arrangement with benefits as well as burdens will of itself constitute damage. The application of limitation periods by analogy to equitable claims for breach of fiduciary duty requires consideration of the aptness of the analogy, but the Court was divided on the scope of this proposition.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 20 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 20 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.