Piggott v Aulton [2003] EWCA Civ 24 (29 January 2003)

Piggott v Aulton [2003] EWCA Civ 24 (29 January 2003)

The first action was not properly constituted as it was brought against a non-existent legal person (the estate without a representative), so the Walkley principle did not apply. The second action was not against the same party as the first. The judge was correct to allow the action to proceed under section 33 and to make no order as to costs, as the need for the application arose from the claimant's solicitors' negligence.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 24
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Stephanie Piggott; Defendant/appellant: David Aulton (Deceased), represented by David Murray
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Birmingham County Court Decision on Limitation and Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal on costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods, Section 33 Limitation Act 1980 Discretion, Service of Proceedings on Estates, Constitution of Parties, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Limitation Law Personal Injury Limitation Periods Section 33 Limitation Act 1980 Discretion Service of Proceedings on Estates Constitution of Parties Costs Orders

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephanie Piggott

Claimant/respondent

David Aulton (Deceased), represented by David Murray

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Birmingham County Court Decision on Limitation and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 to allow the action to proceed after expiry of the limitation period
  2. 2 Whether the Walkley principle applied to bar the second set of proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the parties to the first and second actions were the same for limitation purposes

Ratio Decidendi

The first action was not properly constituted as it was brought against a non-existent legal person (the estate without a representative), so the Walkley principle did not apply. The second action was not against the same party as the first. The judge was correct to allow the action to proceed under section 33 and to make no order as to costs, as the need for the application arose from the claimant's solicitors' negligence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal on costs dismissed.

Orders

  • Action allowed to proceed under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980.
  • No order as to costs of the preliminary issue.