Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article makes three novel contributions to English private law jurisprudence. First, it identifies unifying principles within the limitation doctrine of discoverability that can aid the interpretation of several key provisions in the Limitation Act 1980. Secondly, it uses these principles to show how contradictions in the English courts’ approach to the discoverability of mistakes of law should be corrected. The article aims to reconcile lawyers’ understanding of discoverability across errors of fact and law. Thirdly, the article offers a new understanding of the maligned notion of a settled-view-of-the-law, which has so far failed to receive consensus among restitution jurists. The implications of the article’s thesis suggest that the landmark judgments in Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln CC, Deutsche Morgan Grenfell v IRC and FII Test Claimants v HMRC misapplied the discoverability provision in s.32(1)(c) of the Limitation Act 1980, erroneously exposing (in the overpaid tax cases) billions of pounds of past-collected revenue to litigation. The time is overdue for the English courts to correct their discoverability jurisprudence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".