Del Grosso v Payne & Payne (A Firm) [2007] EWCA Civ 340 (01 March 2007)

Del Grosso v Payne & Payne (A Firm) [2007] EWCA Civ 340 (01 March 2007)

The proposed amendments introduced a new cause of action based on a significantly broader retainer, new breaches, and a fundamentally different basis for loss, requiring extensive new factual investigation. These did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the original claim, failing the test under section 35(5) of the Limitation Act 1980. The appeal was therefore allowed and the amendments refused.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 340
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Del Grosso; Defendant/appellant: Payne & Payne (a Firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation of Actions, Solicitors' Duties, Relief From Sanctions
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Amendment of Pleadings Limitation of Actions Solicitors' Duties Relief From Sanctions

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

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

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 introduced a new cause of action based on a significantly broader retainer, new breaches, and a fundamentally different basis for loss, requiring extensive new factual investigation. These did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the original claim, failing the test under section 35(5) of the Limitation Act 1980. The appeal was therefore allowed and the amendments refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Amendments to Particulars of Claim refused
  • Defendant's costs of appeal to be paid by the Claimant, agreed at £18,000