Co-Operative Group Ltd v Birse Developments Ltd & Ors

Co-Operative Group Ltd v Birse Developments Ltd & Ors

The proposed re-amendment introduced a systemic defect claim regarding slab thickness, which was a qualitative change from the original localised defect allegations and did not arise from substantially the same facts. Therefore, the amendment was not permissible after the expiry of the limitation period.

Parties
Appellant / Claimant: Co-operative Group Limited; First Respondent / Defendant: Birse Developments Limited (in liquidation); Second Respondent / Third Party: Stuarts Industrial Flooring Limited (in administration); Third Respondent / Fourth Party: Jubb & Partners (A Firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (technology and Construction Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation of Actions, Cause of Action, Case Management Discretion
Civil Procedure Construction Law Amendment of Pleadings Limitation of Actions Cause of Action Case Management Discretion

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Co-operative Group Limited

Appellant / Claimant

Birse Developments Limited (in liquidation)

First Respondent / Defendant

Stuarts Industrial Flooring Limited (in administration)

Second Respondent / Third Party

Jubb & Partners (A Firm)

Third Respondent / Fourth Party

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed re-amendment to the Particulars of Claim introduces a new cause of action not arising from the same or substantially the same facts as originally pleaded
  2. 2 Whether the amendment is permissible after expiry of the limitation period under Limitation Act 1980, s.35 and CPR 17.4(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed re-amendment introduced a systemic defect claim regarding slab thickness, which was a qualitative change from the original localised defect allegations and did not arise from substantially the same facts. Therefore, the amendment was not permissible after the expiry of the limitation period.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to re-amend the Particulars of Claim refused