Powis Street Estates (No. 3) Ltd v Wallace LLP & Anor

Powis Street Estates (No. 3) Ltd v Wallace LLP & Anor

The claimant sued the LLP in the mistaken belief that it provided the relevant services, when in fact the partnership did. This was a mistake of fact within the meaning of section 35(6)(a) of the Limitation Act 1980 and CPR 19.5(3)(a). The substitution is necessary and the court should exercise its discretion to permit it, as the partnership and LLP had notice of the claim, share legal representation and insurers, and there is no serious prejudice to the defendants. Refusing substitution would be unjust.

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 Form/particulars
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Substitution of Parties, Mistake in Party Identity, Professional Negligence by Solicitors and Property Agents
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Limitation of Actions Substitution of Parties Mistake in Party Identity Professional Negligence by Solicitors and Property Agents

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 5
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 Form/particulars

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant sued the LLP in the mistaken belief that it provided the relevant services, when in fact the partnership did. This was a mistake of fact within the meaning of section 35(6)(a) of the Limitation Act 1980 and CPR 19.5(3)(a). The substitution is necessary and the court should exercise its discretion to permit it, as the partnership and LLP had notice of the claim, share legal representation and insurers, and there is no serious prejudice to the defendants. Refusing substitution would be unjust.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Permission granted to substitute Cradick Retail (a firm) for Cradick Retail LLP as defendant
  • Permission granted to amend the claim form and particulars of claim accordingly