Trainer v Cramer Pelmont (a firm)

Trainer v Cramer Pelmont (a firm)

The appeal was allowed because Cramer Pelmont had reasonable arguments that Mrs Trainer had acquired section 14A cumulative knowledge (material facts, causation, identity) prior to 31 January 2015, and thus the claim was reasonably arguable as time-barred. Knowledge of inequitable apportionment sufficed for material...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Ms Monique Trainer; Third Defendant/appellant: Cramer Pelmont (a firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Limitation Act 1980 Section 14 a, Negligence, Constructive Knowledge, Material Facts Knowledge, Causation Knowledge, Identity Knowledge, Amendment of Claim, Bankruptcy and Assignment
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Limitation Limitation Act 1980 Section 14 a Negligence Constructive Knowledge Material Facts Knowledge Causation Knowledge +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Monique Trainer

Claimant/respondent

Cramer Pelmont (a firm)

Third Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim against Cramer Pelmont was time-barred under section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 What constitutes material facts knowledge, causation knowledge, and identity knowledge for limitation purposes
  3. 3 Whether constructive knowledge can be imputed from facts observable or ascertainable before damage occurred

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because Cramer Pelmont had reasonable arguments that Mrs Trainer had acquired section 14A cumulative knowledge (material facts, causation, identity) prior to 31 January 2015, and thus the claim was reasonably arguable as time-barred. Knowledge of inequitable apportionment sufficed for material facts knowledge, and constructive knowledge could be imputed from observable or ascertainable facts, including a trail of enquiry from other defendants.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed; parties to agree consequential orders.