Powis Street Estates (No. 3) Ltd v Wallace LLP & Anor [2020] EWHC 1692 (Ch) (06 July 2020)

Powis Street Estates (No. 3) Ltd v Wallace LLP & Anor [2020] EWHC 1692 (Ch) (06 July 2020)

The claimant sued Cradick Retail LLP in the mistaken belief that it provided the relevant services, when in fact the partnership did; this mistake falls within section 35(6)(a) of the Limitation Act 1980 and CPR 19.5(3)(a), and the court should exercise its discretion to permit substitution, as refusal would be unjust given the circumstances and lack of real prejudice to the defendants.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1692 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Powis Street Estates (No. 3) Limited; First Defendant: Wallace LLP; Second Defendant: Cradick Retail LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence Claim / Interlocutory Application for Substitution of Defendant and Amendment of Claim
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Substitution of Parties, Mistake in Party Identity, Amendment of Pleadings, Professional Negligence
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Limitation of Actions Substitution of Parties Mistake in Party Identity 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Powis Street Estates (No. 3) Limited

Claimant

Wallace LLP

First Defendant

Cradick Retail LLP

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence Claim / Interlocutory Application for Substitution of Defendant and Amendment of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant can substitute Cradick Retail (a firm) for Cradick Retail LLP as defendant after expiry of limitation period
  2. 2 Whether the mistake in naming the defendant was a mistake of fact or law under section 35(6)(a) of the Limitation Act 1980 and CPR 19.5(3)(a)
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to permit substitution

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant sued Cradick Retail LLP in the mistaken belief that it provided the relevant services, when in fact the partnership did; this mistake falls within section 35(6)(a) of the Limitation Act 1980 and CPR 19.5(3)(a), and the court should exercise its discretion to permit substitution, as refusal would be unjust given the circumstances and lack of real prejudice to the defendants.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Permission granted to substitute Cradick Retail (a firm) in place of the second defendant
  • Permission granted to amend the claim form and particulars of claim accordingly