Jenkins v JCP Solicitors Ltd [2019] EWHC 852 (QB) (04 April 2019)

Jenkins v JCP Solicitors Ltd [2019] EWHC 852 (QB) (04 April 2019)

The mistake in naming JCP Solicitors Limited instead of John Collins & Partners LLP was a mistake as to name, not identity, based on contemporaneous documents and intention to sue the entity providing advice in 2011. The Court has jurisdiction to allow substitution under CPR 19.5 for the October/November 2011 advice. The District Judge erred in law regarding both the nature of the mistake and the exercise of discretion. Substitution is permitted for the October/November 2011 advice, but not for the April 2011 advice, as the respondent has an arguable limitation defence.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 852 (QB)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Huw Morgan Jenkins; Respondent/defendant: JCP Solicitors Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Appeal From Queen's Bench Division, Post Order of District Judge
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Mistake in Party Identification, Limitation Period, Substitution of Parties, Negligent Legal Advice

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Huw Morgan Jenkins

Appellant/claimant

JCP Solicitors Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Appeal From Queen's Bench Division, Post Order of District Judge

  1. 1 Whether the mistake in naming JCP Solicitors Limited instead of John Collins & Partners LLP was as to name or identity
  2. 2 Whether substitution of LLP for the Company is permitted under CPR 19.5 after expiry of limitation
  3. 3 Whether the claim for negligent advice in April 2011 is statute-barred

Ratio Decidendi

The mistake in naming JCP Solicitors Limited instead of John Collins & Partners LLP was a mistake as to name, not identity, based on contemporaneous documents and intention to sue the entity providing advice in 2011. The Court has jurisdiction to allow substitution under CPR 19.5 for the October/November 2011 advice. The District Judge erred in law regarding both the nature of the mistake and the exercise of discretion. Substitution is permitted for the October/November 2011 advice, but not for the April 2011 advice, as the respondent has an arguable limitation defence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Substitution of John Collins & Partners LLP as defendant in respect of October/November 2011 advice permitted
  • Permission to withdraw concession on limitation granted