Abbey National Plc v John Perry & Co & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 920 (8 May 2001)

Abbey National Plc v John Perry & Co & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 920 (8 May 2001)

There was no compelling reason to discharge the permission to appeal as the omission of the Thimbleby case was inadvertent and immaterial, the issues raised were properly arguable on appeal, and the judge's exercise of discretion could not be faulted. The amendments and reply did not introduce a fundamentally new case and arose out of substantially the same facts.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 920
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Abbey National Plc; Defendant/applicant: John Perry & Co and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application to Discharge Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application to set aside permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation of Actions, Case Management Discretion, Professional Negligence by Solicitors, Constructive and Express Trusts
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Trusts Law Amendment of Pleadings Limitation of Actions Case Management Discretion Professional Negligence by Solicitors Constructive and Express Trusts

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abbey National Plc

Claimant/respondent

John Perry & Co and Others

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application to Discharge Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be discharged due to alleged non-disclosure and mischaracterisation in the application for permission to appeal
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments to the statement of case and reply introduce a new cause of action or arise out of substantially the same facts
  3. 3 Whether the reply introducing an allegation of deliberate concealment is inconsistent with the substantive claim or goes beyond what is required under section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980

Ratio Decidendi

There was no compelling reason to discharge the permission to appeal as the omission of the Thimbleby case was inadvertent and immaterial, the issues raised were properly arguable on appeal, and the judge's exercise of discretion could not be faulted. The amendments and reply did not introduce a fundamentally new case and arose out of substantially the same facts.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Costs assessed at £4,417 to be paid within 14 days
  • If the case has not previously been heard by 31st August, it is to be given the first available date between 1st September and 31st October