Del Grosso v Payne & Payne (A Firm)

Del Grosso v Payne & Payne (A Firm)

The proposed amendments to the Particulars of Claim introduced a materially different scope of retainer, new breaches, and a fundamentally different basis for damages, requiring extensive new factual investigations. Therefore, the new cause of action did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the original claim, and the statutory test under section 35(5) of the Limitation Act 1980 was not met. The appeal was allowed and the amendments were refused.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Del Grosso; Defendant/appellant: Payne & Payne (a Firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation of Actions, Solicitors' Duties
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Amendment of Pleadings Limitation of Actions Solicitors' Duties

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Del Grosso

Claimant/respondent

Payne & Payne (a Firm)

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed amendments to the Particulars of Claim constituted a new cause of action arising out of the same or substantially the same facts as the original claim under section 35(5) of the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether the judge had jurisdiction and properly exercised discretion to allow the amendments and grant relief from sanctions

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendments to the Particulars of Claim introduced a materially different scope of retainer, new breaches, and a fundamentally different basis for damages, requiring extensive new factual investigations. Therefore, the new cause of action did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the original claim, and the statutory test under section 35(5) of the Limitation Act 1980 was not met. The appeal was allowed and the amendments were refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Defendant’s costs of appeal to be paid by the Claimant in the agreed sum of £18,000