S P Manweb Plc v Bechtel Water Technology Ltd & Ors

S P Manweb Plc v Bechtel Water Technology Ltd & Ors

The court found that the mistakes in naming the parties were genuine mistakes as to name, not identity, within the meaning of CPR 19.5(3)(a), and that the amendments were necessary for the determination of the real issues. The court exercised its discretion to allow the amendments, finding it just to do so and that...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: S P Manweb plc; Defendant: Bechtel Water Technology Limited; Defendant: Amec plc; Defendant: United Utilities plc; Defendant: North West Water Limited; Defendant: Site Craft International Limited; Claimant: United Utilities plc; Defendant: Enpure Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil (technology & Construction Court) / Application to Amend Claim Forms and Statements of Case After Expiry of Limitation Period
Outcome
Applications to amend claim forms and statements of case to substitute correct parties allowed.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Mistake as to Party Name, Substitution of Parties, Limitation Act 1980, CPR 17.4, CPR 19.5
Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Construction Law Amendment of Pleadings Mistake as to Party Name Substitution of Parties Limitation Act 1980 CPR 17.4 +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S P Manweb plc

Claimant

Bechtel Water Technology Limited

Defendant

Amec plc

Defendant

United Utilities plc

Defendant

North West Water Limited

Defendant

Site Craft International Limited

Defendant

United Utilities plc

Claimant

Enpure Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (technology & Construction Court) / Application to Amend Claim Forms and Statements of Case After Expiry of Limitation Period

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should allow amendment of claim forms and statements of case to substitute correct parties after expiry of limitation period
  2. 2 Whether the mistakes in naming parties were as to name or identity under CPR 19.5(3)(a)
  3. 3 Whether the discretion to allow amendment should be exercised

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the mistakes in naming the parties were genuine mistakes as to name, not identity, within the meaning of CPR 19.5(3)(a), and that the amendments were necessary for the determination of the real issues. The court exercised its discretion to allow the amendments, finding it just to do so and that refusal would cause significant prejudice to the applicants while conferring an unmeritorious windfall on the respondents.

Court Disposition

Applications to amend claim forms and statements of case to substitute correct parties allowed.

Orders

  • Permission granted to amend the names of the parties as sought in both actions.
  • Further argument to be heard on costs and directions.