Gold v Mincoff Science & Gold (A Firm) [2002] EWCA Civ 1157 (19 July 2002)

Gold v Mincoff Science & Gold (A Firm) [2002] EWCA Civ 1157 (19 July 2002)

The judge's exercise of discretion in allowing the amendment to pleadings was not plainly wrong; there was no evidence of actual prejudice to MSG, and the relevant considerations were properly weighed. The claim in respect of pre-restructuring mortgages was not statute-barred under section 14A. The judge's factual finding that Mr Gold's partnership share was 25% was supported by the evidence and could not be disturbed on appeal.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1157
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Alan Clive Gold; Defendant/appellant: Mincoff Science & Gold (a firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Chancery Division (professional Negligence) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation Act 1980 Section 14 a, Professional Duty of Solicitors, Partnership Shares, ADR and Mediation, Damages Assessment
Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Limitation Law Amendment of Pleadings Limitation Act 1980 Section 14 a Professional Duty of Solicitors Partnership Shares ADR and Mediation +1 more

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Clive Gold

Claimant/respondent

Mincoff Science & Gold (a firm)

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Chancery Division (professional Negligence) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in granting permission to amend pleadings to rely on section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether the claim in respect of pre-restructuring mortgages was statute-barred
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in his assessment of the claimant's partnership share

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's exercise of discretion in allowing the amendment to pleadings was not plainly wrong; there was no evidence of actual prejudice to MSG, and the relevant considerations were properly weighed. The claim in respect of pre-restructuring mortgages was not statute-barred under section 14A. The judge's factual finding that Mr Gold's partnership share was 25% was supported by the evidence and could not be disturbed on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Declaration that the claimant is entitled to indemnity from the defendants in respect of all costs payable by the claimant, Alan Gold, whether to the bank, to his solicitors or to both in connection with his appeal to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords.
  • Appellant to pay respondent 80% of the costs of the appeal on the standard basis.