The Insight Group Ltd & Anor v Kingston Smith (a firm) [2012] EWHC 3644 (QB) (18 December 2012)

The Insight Group Ltd & Anor v Kingston Smith (a firm) [2012] EWHC 3644 (QB) (18 December 2012)

The court held that the mistake in naming the LLP as defendant was a mistake as to the name of the party providing the professional services, not a mistake as to legal liability, and thus fell within CPR r.19.5(3)(a) and s.35(6)(a) of the Limitation Act 1980. The claimants always intended to sue the provider of the relevant professional services, and the evidence showed the error was in naming the LLP instead of the Firm. Therefore, the court had power to substitute the Firm as defendant after the limitation period expired for the relevant claims.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3644 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: The Insight Group Limited; Claimant: Insightsoftware.com Limited; Defendant: Kingston Smith (a firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Order of Master Fontaine, High Court, Queen's Bench Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Substitution of Parties, Mistake in Party Identity, Professional Negligence, Civil Procedure Rules (cpr) R.19.5, Limitation Act 1980 S.35
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Limitation of Actions Substitution of Parties Mistake in Party Identity Civil Procedure Rules (cpr) R.19.5 Limitation Act 1980 S.35

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Insight Group Limited

Claimant

Insightsoftware.com Limited

Claimant

Kingston Smith (a firm)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Order of Master Fontaine, High Court, Queen's Bench Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had power under CPR r.19.5 and s.35 of the Limitation Act 1980 to substitute the former partnership (the Firm) for the LLP as defendant after expiry of the limitation period, where the original claim was brought against the LLP in mistake for the Firm.
  2. 2 Whether the mistake in naming the LLP instead of the Firm was a mistake as to name or as to legal liability under the Sardinia Sulcis test.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the mistake in naming the LLP as defendant was a mistake as to the name of the party providing the professional services, not a mistake as to legal liability, and thus fell within CPR r.19.5(3)(a) and s.35(6)(a) of the Limitation Act 1980. The claimants always intended to sue the provider of the relevant professional services, and the evidence showed the error was in naming the LLP instead of the Firm. Therefore, the court had power to substitute the Firm as defendant after the limitation period expired for the relevant claims.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of Master Fontaine set aside
  • Order substituting the Firm as defendant in place of the LLP restored for the relevant claims