In Edan Agency Inc. v. Palinkas, the Court of Appeal held that limitation periods do not “generally” run against possessory liens. This is because such a lien is a defence, and defences are not subject to statutory limitation periods.
This is a settled point of law. Accordingly, it’s curious that the court should have used the qualifying language of “generally”. I’d like to know in what circumstance a possessory lien would be subject to a limitation period–I suspect there’s none.
