Office Properties PL Ltd & Ors v Adcamp LLP & Anor [2025] EWHC 170 (Ch) (30 January 2025)

Office Properties PL Ltd & Ors v Adcamp LLP & Anor [2025] EWHC 170 (Ch) (30 January 2025)

The amendment to add Adcamp LLP (formerly Pitmans LLP) as defendant is permissible under s.35(6)(b) Limitation Act 1980 and CPR r.19.6(3)(b) because the claim against Pitmans for loss caused by its negligence is the same claim as the original claim against BDB for loss caused by Pitmans' negligence, and the only difference is the party alleged to be liable. The court's discretion should be exercised to permit the amendment as there is no prejudice to the defendant and no reason to refuse.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 170 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Office Properties PL Limited (in liquidation); Claimant: Brian Johnson; Claimant: Peter Kubik; Defendant: Adcamp LLP; Defendant: Richard Chenery
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil (business and Property Courts, Chancery Division) / Application to Disallow Amendment and Strike Out Claim as Statute Barred
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation Act 1980, Addition/substitution of Parties, Professional Negligence, Successor Practice Liability
Civil Procedure Limitation Law Amendment of Pleadings Limitation Act 1980 Addition/substitution of Parties Professional Negligence Successor Practice Liability

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Office Properties PL Limited (in liquidation)

Claimant

Brian Johnson

Claimant

Peter Kubik

Claimant

Adcamp LLP

Defendant

Richard Chenery

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (business and Property Courts, Chancery Division) / Application to Disallow Amendment and Strike Out Claim as Statute Barred

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amendment to add Adcamp LLP (formerly Pitmans LLP) as defendant is permissible under s.35(6)(b) Limitation Act 1980 and CPR r.19.6(3)(b) after expiry of the limitation period
  2. 2 Whether the amended claim is the same claim as the original claim for the purposes of relation-back and limitation
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to permit the amendment

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment to add Adcamp LLP (formerly Pitmans LLP) as defendant is permissible under s.35(6)(b) Limitation Act 1980 and CPR r.19.6(3)(b) because the claim against Pitmans for loss caused by its negligence is the same claim as the original claim against BDB for loss caused by Pitmans' negligence, and the only difference is the party alleged to be liable. The court's discretion should be exercised to permit the amendment as there is no prejudice to the defendant and no reason to refuse.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Amendment to add Adcamp LLP as defendant permitted
  • Claim not struck out as statute-barred