Trainer v Cramer Pelmont (a firm) [2019] EWHC 2501 (QB) (25 September 2019)

Trainer v Cramer Pelmont (a firm) [2019] EWHC 2501 (QB) (25 September 2019)

The court held that the master was correct to conclude there was no reasonable argument that the claim against Cramer Pelmont was time-barred under section 14A, as Mrs Trainer did not have the requisite actual or constructive knowledge of the material facts, causation, and identity more than three years before the amendment. The amendment to add Cramer Pelmont as a defendant was therefore not to be disallowed on limitation grounds.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2501
Parties
Claimant and Respondent: Ms Monique Trainer; Third Defendant and Appellant: Cramer Pelmont (a firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Order of Deputy Master (high Court, Queen's Bench Division) / Appeal Against Refusal to Disallow Amendment Adding Cramer Pelmont as Defendant on Limitation Grounds
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation Act 1980 Section 14 a, Negligence by Solicitors, Amendment of Claim Forms, Constructive Knowledge, Bankruptcy and Assignment of Claims
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Limitation Law Limitation Act 1980 Section 14 a Negligence by Solicitors Amendment of Claim Forms Constructive Knowledge Bankruptcy and Assignment of Claims

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Monique Trainer

Claimant and Respondent

Cramer Pelmont (a firm)

Third Defendant and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Order of Deputy Master (high Court, Queen's Bench Division) / Appeal Against Refusal to Disallow Amendment Adding Cramer Pelmont as Defendant on Limitation Grounds

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim against Cramer Pelmont was time-barred under section 14A Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether Mrs Trainer had actual or constructive knowledge of material facts, causation, and identity for limitation purposes
  3. 3 Whether the amendment to add Cramer Pelmont as a defendant should be disallowed as depriving them of a limitation defence

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the master was correct to conclude there was no reasonable argument that the claim against Cramer Pelmont was time-barred under section 14A, as Mrs Trainer did not have the requisite actual or constructive knowledge of the material facts, causation, and identity more than three years before the amendment. The amendment to add Cramer Pelmont as a defendant was therefore not to be disallowed on limitation grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Refusal to disallow amendment adding Cramer Pelmont as defendant upheld
  • Costs to be determined as appropriate