Maggistro-Contenta & Anor v O'Shea & Anor

Maggistro-Contenta & Anor v O'Shea & Anor

The court refused to grant an extension of time for service of particulars of claim because the breach was serious and significant, the reasons for default were insufficient, and the claim as pleaded lacked real prospects of success, particularly against Mr O’Shea. The court declared it had no jurisdiction to try the claim due to late service and absence of a sustainable cause of action.

Parties
Claimant: Mrs Veline Hoie Maggistro-Contenta; Claimant: Mrs Veline Hoie Maggistro-Contenta (as Personal Representative of the late Giacomino Maggistro-Contenta); Defendant: Mr James Patrick O’Shea; Defendant: Jury O’Shea LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Applications for Extension of Time and Jurisdiction/strike Out
Outcome
claimant's application dismissed; declaration of no jurisdiction granted
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Extension of Time, Service of Particulars of Claim, Professional Indemnity, Breach of Duty, Administration of Estates
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Estate Administration Relief From Sanctions Extension of Time Service of Particulars of Claim Professional Indemnity Breach of Duty +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Veline Hoie Maggistro-Contenta

Claimant

Mrs Veline Hoie Maggistro-Contenta (as Personal Representative of the late Giacomino Maggistro-Contenta)

Claimant

Mr James Patrick O’Shea

Defendant

Jury O’Shea LLP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Applications for Extension of Time and Jurisdiction/strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant an extension of time for service of particulars of claim
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to try the claim given late service
  3. 3 Whether the claim form and particulars of claim disclose real prospects of success against the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to grant an extension of time for service of particulars of claim because the breach was serious and significant, the reasons for default were insufficient, and the claim as pleaded lacked real prospects of success, particularly against Mr O’Shea. The court declared it had no jurisdiction to try the claim due to late service and absence of a sustainable cause of action.

Court Disposition

claimant's application dismissed; declaration of no jurisdiction granted

Orders

  • Declaration that the court has no jurisdiction to try the claim
  • Claimant's application for extension of time dismissed