Russell & Anor v Stone (t/a PSP Consultants) & Ors [2017] EWHC 1555 (TCC) (29 June 2017)

Russell & Anor v Stone (t/a PSP Consultants) & Ors [2017] EWHC 1555 (TCC) (29 June 2017)

The Standstill Agreements operated to suspend, not extend, the limitation period. The claimants were not required to issue proceedings during the standstill period and properly issued them after expiry. The claims are not statute-barred. The protection of earlier Standstill Agreements was not lost upon entering the third. Claims against the second defendant cannot be struck out at this stage due to factual uncertainty.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1555 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mr Stuart Howard Russell; Claimant/respondent: Mrs Naomi Patricia Russell; Defendant/applicant: Peter Stone (trading as PSP Consultants); Defendant/applicant: PSP Consultants Limited; Defendant/applicant: PSP Consultants (a firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Strike Out Application / Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation Period, Standstill Agreements, Contract Interpretation, Strike Out Applications
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Construction Law Limitation Period Standstill Agreements Contract Interpretation Strike Out Applications

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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Stuart Howard Russell

Claimant/respondent

Mrs Naomi Patricia Russell

Claimant/respondent

Peter Stone (trading as PSP Consultants)

Defendant/applicant

PSP Consultants Limited

Defendant/applicant

PSP Consultants (a firm)

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Strike Out Application / Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the claimants' three claims statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980?
  2. 2 Did the Standstill Agreements suspend or extend the limitation period?
  3. 3 Did the claimants lose protection of earlier Standstill Agreements upon entering the third agreement?

Ratio Decidendi

The Standstill Agreements operated to suspend, not extend, the limitation period. The claimants were not required to issue proceedings during the standstill period and properly issued them after expiry. The claims are not statute-barred. The protection of earlier Standstill Agreements was not lost upon entering the third. Claims against the second defendant cannot be struck out at this stage due to factual uncertainty.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The strike-out application is refused.
  • Claims (i), (ii), and (iii) are not statute-barred and may proceed.