Aldi Stores Ltd v Holmes Buildings Plc [2003] EWCA Civ 1882 (01 December 2003)

Aldi Stores Ltd v Holmes Buildings Plc [2003] EWCA Civ 1882 (01 December 2003)

The proposed amendments did not introduce new causes of action but merely particularised further heads of loss arising from the same alleged breach of duty by WSP; therefore, they did not constitute new claims under section 35(2) of the Limitation Act 1980 or CPR 17.4(2), and should be permitted.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 1882
Parties
Claimant: Aldi Stores Limited; Defendant/part 20 Claimant/appellant: Holmes Buildings PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (technology and Construction Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation of Actions, Part 20 Claims, Abuse of Process, Indemnity and Contribution
Civil Procedure Construction Law Amendment of Pleadings Limitation of Actions Part 20 Claims Abuse of Process Indemnity and Contribution

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aldi Stores Limited

Claimant

Holmes Buildings PLC

Defendant/part 20 Claimant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (technology and Construction Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed amendments to Part 20 claim constitute new claims under section 35(2) Limitation Act 1980 and CPR 17.4(2)
  2. 2 Whether new claims arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as existing claims
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise discretion to allow the amendments

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendments did not introduce new causes of action but merely particularised further heads of loss arising from the same alleged breach of duty by WSP; therefore, they did not constitute new claims under section 35(2) of the Limitation Act 1980 or CPR 17.4(2), and should be permitted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Permission granted to amend the Part 20 claim as sought by Holmes
  • Costs of the appeal and below awarded to Holmes, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed