In conclusion, although the April 2015 order purports to be nunc pro tunc, the court has no authority to make a nunc pro tunc order, including under s. 38 of the BIA, if the party did not seek such an order before the relevant limitation period expired. The limitation period intervened in this case long before the order was sought. In light of the authorities, I conclude that the April 2015 order can only “reach back” for a period of two years – the limitation period. It is of no assistance to the plaintiffs. The Rule in Foss v. Harbottle Bars the Plaintiffs’ Claim for Loss of Investments and Income
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.