Nullum tempus occurrit regi

Nullum tempus occurrit regi ("no time runs against the king"), also abbreviated to nullum tempus,[1] is a common law doctrine.

In republics, it is often referred to as "nullum tempus occurrit reipublicae".[2]

Meaning

The doctrine states that the crown is not subject to statutes of limitations.[3] This means that the crown can proceed with actions that would be barred if brought by an individual due to the passage of time.

The doctrine is considered by some to be an application of sovereign immunity to areas of law concerning statutes of limitations.[4] While the two doctrines are often linked as concepts, and are considered by some jurisdictions to be intertwined in policy and practice, there is a debate on whether the two doctrines are actually related.[1]

Purpose

Some legal experts assert that Nullum tempus is designed to protect public interests, on the belief that members of the public should not have to be liable for an official's failure to bring timely actions.[1]

In the United States, the Supreme Court listed a separate purpose for nullum tempus, asserting, in a 1938 ruling, that since the King is always busily working for the public good, it does not have time to assert his rights, within the timeframe that is normally given to his subjects.[5]

Criticism

Some legal experts have called for the abolition of nullum tempus.[6] They argue that sovereign immunity, which they assert is the legal underpinning of nullum tempus, can lead to unjust results, and that nullum tempus is difficult to justify because policies underlying sovereign immunity bears no logical relations to those that support statutes of limitation.[6]

Some also argue that nullum tempus needs to be abolished, at least in matters relating to tax laws, in order to provide finality for matters, encourage timeliness of claims, harmonize tax laws with other administrative laws, promote administrative and judicial economy, and discourage arbitrary assessments.[7]

Use by regions

Canada

For civil cases in Canada, the statute of limitation for non-governmental entities vary by province, any can vary from 1 to 20 years, depending on the case.[8]

The crown, however, enjoys a longer statute of limitation in some cases. In Nova Scotia, the Limitations of Actions Act in 1837 puts a 60-year statute of limitations on the crown to pursue any claims on lands or rent.[9] The 60-year limitation was also mentioned in the Real Property Limitations Act.[10]

The 60-year limitation is a legacy of legislation from the United Kingdom, as mentioned below.[9]

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, application of nullum tempus was restricted, but not ended entirely, by the Nullum Tempus Acts of 1623 and 1769, which barred Crown claims that predated 60 years.[9]

In a court ruling in Canada's Nova Scotia province that mentioned the history of nullum tempus in the United Kingdom, it was noted that the rationale for the acts was that the King at the time wished people can hold the lands which they and their ancestors had enjoyed.[9]

United States

On the federal level, nullum tempus is a legacy of British law, dating back to the nation's time as a group of British colonies.[11] It has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a valid legal doctrine since at least 1878.[12]

Many states within the United States have court opinions or laws that mention or delineate the use of nullum tempus. The frequency of such court rulings or laws, as well as its applicability or limitations, vary by state.[11]

Nullum tempus is no longer applicable in 12 states. Of those 12 states, Connecticut, Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana and North Dakota abolished the doctrine via legislation, while Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Jersey, New York and South Carolina abolished it via a court ruling [11][13][14]

The applicability of nullum tempus in Tennessee is unclear, and Alaska's Supreme Court has never addressed, discussed or otherwise mentioned nullum tempus in its rulings.[11]

Further reading
  • Donald W. Sutherland, Quo Warranto Proceedings in the Reign of Edward I, 1278-1294 (Oxford; Clarendon Press, 1963)
  • Bowden, Thomas A. "Sovereign Immunity from Statutes of Limitation in Maryland" (PDF). Maryland Law Review. 46 (2). Retrieved November 4, 2019.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  • Kosfky, Ausher M.B. "Because Forever Is Too Long". Western New England Law Review. 37 (3). Retrieved November 4, 2019.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
gollark: ABR does my highlights.
gollark: !osmarks.net interplanetary time
gollark: !Macron development time
gollark: Except the O in choc?
gollark: https://pronouny.xyz/u/osmarks

References
  1. Rubinstein, Kenneth E.; Rideout, Laura; Everitt, Ed (Spring 2016). "Time Does Not Run Against the King — But What About The Prince? When Municipalities Can Assert Nullum Tempus". Under Construction. American Bar Association. 17 (4). Archived from the original on March 19, 2017. Retrieved November 4, 2019.
  2. Cushman, Robert F; G. Christian Hedemann (1995). Architect and Engineer Liability. Aspen Publishers Online. p. 351. ISBN 0-7355-0666-3.
  3. Mack, Joseph (2006-04-01). "Nullum tempus: governmental immunity to statutes of limitation, laches, and statutes of repose". Defense Counsel Journal. Retrieved 2008-08-21.
  4. Bowden, p. 408-409.
  5. Kosfky, p. 276.
  6. Bowden, p. 409.
  7. Kosfky, p. 299.
  8. "Limitation Periods in Canada's Provnces & Territories" (PDF). Olga Gil Research Services. 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 10 October 2019.
  9. "Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Brill, 2010 NSCA 69". Canadian Legal information Institute. Nova Scotia Court of Appeals. 9 September 2009. Retrieved 10 October 2019.
  10. "Real Property Limitations Act". Canadian Legal information Institute. p. 5. Retrieved 10 October 2019.
  11. "Nullum Tempus - Compendoum of Law" (PDF). US Law Network. Retrieved 7 October 2019.
  12. United States Supreme Court (1878). "98 U.S. 486 - United States v. Thompson". OpenJurist. Retrieved 10 October 2019.
  13. Berr, Kristopher (July 20, 2017). "The King's Time Is Up: Arizona Supreme Court Holds That the Statute of Repose Bars Untimely Claims by State Entities and Overrides the Doctrine of Nullum Tempus Occurrit Regi". Lexology. Law Business Research. Retrieved November 4, 2019.
  14. Wilson, Jenny (9 June 2015). "Three-Year Lobbying Effort Overturns 13th Century Law". Hartford Courant. Retrieved 10 October 2019.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.