Over the past two decades, English courts have construed section 32(1)(c) of the Limitation Act 1980 to extend the time for pleading a cause of action in mistake of law until a decision of a final court authoritatively resolves the point of law at issue. The Supreme Court in Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Revenue and Customs Comrs held that this interpretation was illogical and erroneous. In construing section 32(1)(c), the focus of attention should not be on judicial decisions, but on the claimant's ability to discover that they had a worthwhile claim. Limitation begins to run once a reasonably diligent person in the position of the claimant could have known that there was a real possibility that a mistake of law had been made. This welcome reinterpretation obviates the former mischief of judicial developments of the law extending causes of action for an indefinite period of time.

中文翻译：

---

多付的税务诉讼：路障

在过去的 20 年中，英国法院已将 1980 年《时效法》第 32(1)(c) 条解释为延长对法律错误诉讼因由的辩护时间，直到最终法院的裁决权威性地解决了法律问题。有问题。最高法院在Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Revenue and Custom Comrs中测试索赔人认为这种解释是不合逻辑和错误的。在解释第 32(1)(c) 条时，注意力的焦点不应该放在司法裁决上，而应该放在索赔人发现他们提出有价值索赔的能力上。一旦处于索赔人位置的合理勤奋的人可能知道确实有可能犯了法律错误，则时效开始生效。这种受欢迎的重新解释消除了以前无限期延长诉讼因由的法律司法发展的弊端。