Russell & Anor v Stone (t/a PSP Consultants) & Ors

Russell & Anor v Stone (t/a PSP Consultants) & Ors

The Standstill Agreements operated to suspend, not extend, the limitation period. The claimants were not required to issue proceedings during the standstill period, and issuing proceedings the day after the period ended was within time. The Standstill Agreements were continuous and preserved the claimants' rights. The claims are not statute-barred.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mr Stuart Howard Russell; Claimant/respondent: Mrs Naomi Patricia Russell; Defendant/applicant: Peter Stone (trading as PSP Consultants); Defendant/applicant: PSP Consultants Limited; Defendant/applicant: PSP Consultants (a firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Professional Negligence / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Claims as Statute Barred
Outcome
Application to strike out dismissed (except as to possible claims against the second defendant, which were not struck out at this stage)
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods, Standstill Agreements, Construction of Contracts, Striking Out Applications
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Contract Law Limitation Periods Standstill Agreements Construction of Contracts Striking Out Applications

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Stuart Howard Russell

Claimant/respondent

Mrs Naomi Patricia Russell

Claimant/respondent

Peter Stone (trading as PSP Consultants)

Defendant/applicant

PSP Consultants Limited

Defendant/applicant

PSP Consultants (a firm)

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Professional Negligence / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Claims as Statute Barred

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When did the causes of action for the three claims accrue for limitation purposes?
  2. 2 Did the Standstill Agreements suspend or extend the limitation period?
  3. 3 Did the claimants lose the protection of earlier Standstill Agreements upon entering the third?

Ratio Decidendi

The Standstill Agreements operated to suspend, not extend, the limitation period. The claimants were not required to issue proceedings during the standstill period, and issuing proceedings the day after the period ended was within time. The Standstill Agreements were continuous and preserved the claimants' rights. The claims are not statute-barred.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out dismissed (except as to possible claims against the second defendant, which were not struck out at this stage)

Orders

  • The application to strike out the three claims as statute-barred is dismissed.
  • No order striking out the second defendant at this stage; issue to be revisited after disclosure.