Housemaker Services Ltd v Cole & Anor [2017] EWHC 753 (Ch) (07 April 2017)

Housemaker Services Ltd v Cole & Anor [2017] EWHC 753 (Ch) (07 April 2017)

The claimant failed to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that, but for the dissolution, it would have issued proceedings before the expiry of the limitation period. The evidence only established a window of opportunity, not probability. Even if causation were established, there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a limitation direction in favour of the company. The application therefore fails.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 753 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Housemaker Services Ltd; Defendant: Huw Cole; Defendant: Susan Steggles-Cole
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim / Judgment on Application for Limitation Direction Under Companies Act 2006, S 1028(3), (4)
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Restoration of Companies, Limitation Directions, Companies Act 2006 S1028, Civil Litigation
Company Law Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Restoration of Companies Limitation Directions Companies Act 2006 S1028 Civil Litigation

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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Housemaker Services Ltd

Claimant

Huw Cole

Defendant

Susan Steggles-Cole

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim / Judgment on Application for Limitation Direction Under Companies Act 2006, S 1028(3), (4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant a limitation direction under Companies Act 2006, s 1028(3), (4) to discount the period during which the claimant company was dissolved for the purposes of limitation in a claim for unpaid invoices.

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that, but for the dissolution, it would have issued proceedings before the expiry of the limitation period. The evidence only established a window of opportunity, not probability. Even if causation were established, there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a limitation direction in favour of the company. The application therefore fails.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for a limitation direction under Companies Act 2006 s 1028(3), (4) is dismissed.