Hemmingway & Anor v Roddam (a firm) & Ors [2003] EWCA Civ 1342 (18 September 2003)

Hemmingway & Anor v Roddam (a firm) & Ors [2003] EWCA Civ 1342 (18 September 2003)

The proposed amendments arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as those already in issue on the original pleadings, including facts pleaded in the defence. The judge erred in taking a narrow view of the original pleadings and not analysing the factual issues that would have been litigated. The court has jurisdiction to allow the amendments, and discretion should be exercised in favour of allowing them so the real issues can be resolved at trial.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 1342
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mark Hemmingway; Claimant/appellant: Janice Hemmingway; Defendant/respondent: Smith Roddam (A Firm); Defendant/respondent: A N Fairclough; Defendant/respondent: G M Chisem; Defendant/respondent: G Johnson; Defendant/respondent: D L Harris
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Amendment of Particulars of Claim Post Limitation
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation of Actions, Solicitor's Duty of Care, Discretion to Amend, Retainer Scope
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Amendment of Pleadings Limitation of Actions Solicitor's Duty of Care Discretion to Amend Retainer Scope

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Hemmingway

Claimant/appellant

Janice Hemmingway

Claimant/appellant

Smith Roddam (A Firm)

Defendant/respondent

A N Fairclough

Defendant/respondent

G M Chisem

Defendant/respondent

G Johnson

Defendant/respondent

D L Harris

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Amendment of Particulars of Claim Post Limitation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to amend particulars of claim after expiry of limitation period under CPR 17.4(1)
  2. 2 Whether proposed amendments arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the original claim
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to allow the amendments

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendments arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as those already in issue on the original pleadings, including facts pleaded in the defence. The judge erred in taking a narrow view of the original pleadings and not analysing the factual issues that would have been litigated. The court has jurisdiction to allow the amendments, and discretion should be exercised in favour of allowing them so the real issues can be resolved at trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Claimants granted leave to amend particulars of claim as sought in paragraphs 3(A), 3(B), 3(C), 5(c)(xxx), 5(c)(xxxi), 5(c)(xxxii), and 5(d)
  • Final formally pleaded version of the Particulars of Claim to be served within 14 days