Office Properties PL Limited (in liquidation) & Ors v Adcamp LLP & Anor

Office Properties PL Limited (in liquidation) & Ors v Adcamp LLP & Anor

The amendment to add Pitmans as defendant falls within s.35(6)(b) and CPR r.19.6(3)(b) because the claim for loss caused by Pitmans’ negligence is the same claim as originally pleaded, and the allegation that BDB was liable was not a necessary ingredient of the claim. The court’s discretion should be exercised to permit the amendment as there is no prejudice to the substituted party.

Parties
Claimant: Office Properties PL Limited; Claimant: Brian Johnson; Claimant: Peter Kubik; Defendant: Adcamp LLP; Defendant: Richard Chenery
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Application to Disallow Amendment and Strike Out Claim
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Addition/substitution of Parties, Statute of Limitations, Professional Negligence
Civil Procedure Limitation Law Amendment of Pleadings Addition/substitution of Parties Statute of Limitations Professional Negligence

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

Parties

Office Properties PL Limited

Claimant

Brian Johnson

Claimant

Peter Kubik

Claimant

Adcamp LLP

Defendant

Richard Chenery

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Application to Disallow Amendment and Strike Out Claim

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment to add Pitmans as defendant falls within s.35(6)(b) and CPR r.19.6(3)(b) because the claim for loss caused by Pitmans’ negligence is the same claim as originally pleaded, and the allegation that BDB was liable was not a necessary ingredient of the claim. The court’s discretion should be exercised to permit the amendment as there is no prejudice to the substituted party.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Amendment to add Pitmans as defendant permitted
  • Strike out application refused