Hemmingway & Anor v Roddam (a firm) & Ors

Hemmingway & Anor v Roddam (a firm) & Ors

The proposed amendments arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as those already in issue on the original pleadings and defence. The court has jurisdiction to allow the amendments under CPR 17.4(2) and section 35 of the Limitation Act. The judge erred in taking a narrow view of the pleadings and not analysing the factual issues that would have been litigated. Discretion should be exercised to allow the amendments so the real issues can be resolved at trial.

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 Pleadings
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation of Actions, Professional Negligence, Solicitor's Duties
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Limitation of Actions Professional Negligence Solicitor's Duties

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
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 Pleadings

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

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendments arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as those already in issue on the original pleadings and defence. The court has jurisdiction to allow the amendments under CPR 17.4(2) and section 35 of the Limitation Act. The judge erred in taking a narrow view of the pleadings and not analysing the factual issues that would have been litigated. Discretion should be exercised to allow the amendments so the real issues can be resolved at trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Amendments to particulars of claim allowed
  • Final formally pleaded version of the Particulars of Claim to be served within 14 days