CCP Graduate School Limited v The Secretary of State for Education

CCP Graduate School Limited v The Secretary of State for Education

The appeal was dismissed because all claims were limitation barred, despite the Appellant having an arguable claim under the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 and the abuse of process finding being overturned; no direct or implied contract existed between Appellant and Respondent, and the application to amend should have been allowed but was futile due to limitation.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: CCP Graduate School Limited; Respondent/defendant: The Secretary of State for Education
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Strike Out and Refusal to Amend
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Contracts, Third Party Rights, Limitation, Abuse of Process, Amendment of Pleadings
Contract Law Civil Procedure Education Law Implied Contracts Third Party Rights Limitation Abuse of Process Amendment of Pleadings

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 7 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CCP Graduate School Limited

Appellant/claimant

The Secretary of State for Education

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Strike Out and Refusal to Amend

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Existence of direct or implied contract between Appellant and Respondent
  2. 2 Applicability of Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
  3. 3 Whether claims are limitation barred

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because all claims were limitation barred, despite the Appellant having an arguable claim under the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 and the abuse of process finding being overturned; no direct or implied contract existed between Appellant and Respondent, and the application to amend should have been allowed but was futile due to limitation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused on ground 1 (contract) and ground 3 (limitation)
  • Permission to appeal granted and appeal upheld on ground 2 (1999 Act claim) and ground 4 (abuse of process)