Pickthall v Hill Dickinson Llp & Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 543 (11 June 2009)

Pickthall v Hill Dickinson Llp & Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 543 (11 June 2009)

Commencing proceedings when the claimant knows he does not have the cause of action vested in him is an abuse of process, regardless of intention to obtain title later. Allowing amendment to plead a subsequent assignment would reward the abuse and is not permissible.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Civ 543
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Jason Pickthall; Appellant/first Defendant: Hill Dickinson LLP; Appellant/second Defendant: Richard Martindale
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division, Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claim struck out as abuse of process; amendment to plead assignment refused.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Limitation Periods, Assignment of Causes of Action, Amendment of Pleadings
Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Professional Negligence Abuse of Process Limitation Periods Assignment of Causes of Action Amendment of Pleadings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jason Pickthall

Respondent/claimant

Hill Dickinson LLP

Appellant/first Defendant

Richard Martindale

Appellant/second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division, Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether commencing proceedings without the relevant cause of action vested in the claimant is an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the claimant should be allowed to amend pleadings to plead a subsequent assignment obtained after the limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

Commencing proceedings when the claimant knows he does not have the cause of action vested in him is an abuse of process, regardless of intention to obtain title later. Allowing amendment to plead a subsequent assignment would reward the abuse and is not permissible.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claim struck out as abuse of process; amendment to plead assignment refused.

Orders

  • The claim is struck out as an abuse of process.
  • Permission to amend to plead the assignment is refused.