Roberts v Gill & Co & Anor

Roberts v Gill & Co & Anor

The appeal was dismissed because the addition of the administrator as a party was not 'necessary' under CPR 19.5, as Mr Mark Roberts's personal claim could proceed without it. The rules governing the addition of parties after the limitation period were not satisfied, and no special circumstances existed to justify a derivative claim by the beneficiary. The Civil Procedure Rules and the authorities require both the presence of special circumstances and compliance with procedural requirements, neither of which were met.

Parties
Appellant: Mark Roberts; Respondents: Gill & Co. & Anr.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Derivative Actions, Limitation Periods, Professional Negligence, Amendment of Pleadings
Trusts and Estates Civil Procedure Derivative Actions Limitation Periods Professional Negligence Amendment of Pleadings

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Roberts

Appellant

Gill & Co. & Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a beneficiary can bring a derivative claim on behalf of an estate against solicitors for professional negligence after the limitation period has expired for the estate's claim
  2. 2 Whether the Civil Procedure Rules permit amendment to allow a beneficiary to sue in a representative capacity
  3. 3 Whether special or exceptional circumstances exist to justify a derivative claim by a beneficiary

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the addition of the administrator as a party was not 'necessary' under CPR 19.5, as Mr Mark Roberts's personal claim could proceed without it. The rules governing the addition of parties after the limitation period were not satisfied, and no special circumstances existed to justify a derivative claim by the beneficiary. The Civil Procedure Rules and the authorities require both the presence of special circumstances and compliance with procedural requirements, neither of which were met.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to amend proceedings to bring a derivative claim refused
  • Respondents’ notice dismissed