Kesslar v Moore & Tibbits [2004] EWCA Civ 1551 (03 November 2004)

Kesslar v Moore & Tibbits [2004] EWCA Civ 1551 (03 November 2004)

The claimant's mistake was as to the identity of the proper defendant, not merely as to legal liability; the intended defendants (Miss Roughley and Mr Kundert) could be identified by reference to the specific description in the claim. Therefore, CPR 19.5(3)(a) permits substitution after the limitation period, and the appeal should be allowed.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1551
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Beverley Kesslar; Respondents/defendants: Moore & Tibbits
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision (redditch County Court, HHJ Geddes) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Substitution of Parties, Solicitors' Negligence, Mistake in Party Identification
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Limitation of Actions Substitution of Parties Solicitors' Negligence Mistake in Party Identification

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

Parties

Beverley Kesslar

Appellant/claimant

Moore & Tibbits

Respondents/defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision (redditch County Court, HHJ Geddes) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CPR 19.5(3)(a) permits substitution of defendants after expiry of limitation period where the original defendant was named by mistake for the intended party
  2. 2 Whether the mistake was as to identity or legal liability of the party sued

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's mistake was as to the identity of the proper defendant, not merely as to legal liability; the intended defendants (Miss Roughley and Mr Kundert) could be identified by reference to the specific description in the claim. Therefore, CPR 19.5(3)(a) permits substitution after the limitation period, and the appeal should be allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order to substitute Mr Kundert and Miss Roughley as defendants in place of Moore & Tibbits
  • Repayment of costs incurred and paid by the appellant for hearings on 29th September and 20th November 2003 (£3,491.06), and 21st May 2004 (£4,303.64)