Piggott v Aulton

Piggott v Aulton

The first action was not properly constituted as there was no defendant with legal personality; thus, the Walkley principle does not apply to bar the second action. The judge was correct to allow the action to proceed under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980. The judge's order on costs was within his discretion and not perverse.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Stephanie Piggott; Defendant/appellant: David Aulton (Deceased), estate represented by David Murray
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / 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, Constitution of Parties, Abuse of Process, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Limitation Law Limitation Periods Section 33 Limitation Act 1980 Discretion Constitution of Parties Abuse of Process 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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephanie Piggott

Claimant/respondent

David Aulton (Deceased), estate represented by David Murray

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / 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 the limitation period
  2. 2 Whether the Walkley principle applied to bar the second action
  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 there was no defendant with legal personality; thus, the Walkley principle does not apply to bar the second action. The judge was correct to allow the action to proceed under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980. The judge's order on costs was within his discretion and not perverse.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal on costs dismissed.

Orders

  • Action allowed to proceed under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980.
  • No order for costs in favour of the respondent on the preliminary issue; each party to bear own costs as per judge's discretion.