Pickthall v Hill Dickinson Llp & Anor

Pickthall v Hill Dickinson Llp & Anor

Commencing proceedings when the claimant knows he does not have the cause of action vested in him is a plain abuse of process, regardless of intention to obtain assignment later. Permission to amend to plead a subsequent assignment should not be granted as it would reward the abuse.

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, Assignment of Cause of Action, Limitation Periods, Amendment of Pleadings
Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Law Limitation of Actions Abuse of Process Assignment of Cause of Action Limitation Periods 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 cause of action vested in the claimant is an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether permission to amend pleadings to plead a subsequent assignment after the limitation period should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Commencing proceedings when the claimant knows he does not have the cause of action vested in him is a plain abuse of process, regardless of intention to obtain assignment later. Permission to amend to plead a subsequent assignment should not be granted as it would reward the abuse.

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.