Jessup & Ors v Wetherell & Anor

Jessup & Ors v Wetherell & Anor

The claimants' cause of action against the defendants accrued by April 1999 when the first action was 'doomed to failure' and liable to be struck out for want of prosecution. The limitation period of six years expired before the present claim was commenced in April 2005. There was no evidence of concealment or delayed knowledge to extend the limitation period. Summary judgment was appropriate as the claim was statute-barred.

Parties
Claimant: Francis Alice Jessup; Claimant: Iris Hazel Emily Harvey; Claimant: Gwendoline Gladys Horney; Claimant: Shirley May Keller; Claimant: Peter Franklin Horney; Claimant: Robert Alan Horney; Claimant: Victoria May James; Claimant: Mavis Rose Catlin; Defendant: Ian Sinclair Wetherell; Defendant: Norris Bazzard & Co
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Application for Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal
Outcome
permission to appeal refused; appeal dismissed; summary judgment upheld
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Limitation Period, Solicitor Negligence, Accrual of Cause of Action, Statutory Interpretation
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Limitation of Actions Summary Judgment Limitation Period Solicitor Negligence Accrual of Cause of Action Statutory Interpretation

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francis Alice Jessup

Claimant

Iris Hazel Emily Harvey

Claimant

Gwendoline Gladys Horney

Claimant

Shirley May Keller

Claimant

Peter Franklin Horney

Claimant

Robert Alan Horney

Claimant

Victoria May James

Claimant

Mavis Rose Catlin

Claimant

Ian Sinclair Wetherell

Defendant

Norris Bazzard & Co

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Application for Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate limitation period for the present claim?
  2. 2 When did the limitation period for the present claim commence?
  3. 3 Is this an appropriate case in which to order summary judgment?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' cause of action against the defendants accrued by April 1999 when the first action was 'doomed to failure' and liable to be struck out for want of prosecution. The limitation period of six years expired before the present claim was commenced in April 2005. There was no evidence of concealment or delayed knowledge to extend the limitation period. Summary judgment was appropriate as the claim was statute-barred.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal refused; appeal dismissed; summary judgment upheld

Orders

  • Summary judgment for defendants
  • Claim dismissed as statute-barred