Clydesdale Financial Services Ltd v Nesbit Law Group LLP

Clydesdale Financial Services Ltd v Nesbit Law Group LLP

Acasta has a real prospect of establishing the existence of relevant STBAs, the implication of certain terms (including a duty to assess claims with reasonable care and skill) in any collateral contract, and the existence of a duty of care. The set-off defences are equitable, not subject to Limitation Act 1980 section 35 or CPR 17.4. Therefore, Acasta is permitted to re-amend its defence to plead these matters, and Nesbit's applications to strike out or for summary judgment are refused.

Parties
Claimant: Clydesdale Financial Services Limited; Defendant: Nesbit Law Group LLP (In Administration); Third Party: Acasta European Insurance Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Interlocutory Applications (permission to Re Amend Defence and Strike Out/summary Judgment)
Outcome
Applications by Nesbit to strike out or for summary judgment refused; Acasta granted permission to re-amend its defence as indicated.
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Set Off (equitable), Summary Judgment, Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation of Actions, Duty of Care
Contract Law Civil Procedure Insurance Law Implied Terms Set Off (equitable) Summary Judgment Amendment of Pleadings Limitation of Actions +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clydesdale Financial Services Limited

Claimant

Nesbit Law Group LLP (In Administration)

Defendant

Acasta European Insurance Company Limited

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Interlocutory Applications (permission to Re Amend Defence and Strike Out/summary Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Acasta may re-amend its defence to plead implied terms and set-off
  2. 2 Whether Nesbit's application to strike out or for summary judgment on parts of the defence should succeed
  3. 3 Whether Acasta has a real prospect of establishing the existence of Solicitor Terms of Business Agreements (STBAs)

Ratio Decidendi

Acasta has a real prospect of establishing the existence of relevant STBAs, the implication of certain terms (including a duty to assess claims with reasonable care and skill) in any collateral contract, and the existence of a duty of care. The set-off defences are equitable, not subject to Limitation Act 1980 section 35 or CPR 17.4. Therefore, Acasta is permitted to re-amend its defence to plead these matters, and Nesbit's applications to strike out or for summary judgment are refused.

Court Disposition

Applications by Nesbit to strike out or for summary judgment refused; Acasta granted permission to re-amend its defence as indicated.

Orders

  • Acasta permitted to re-amend its defence to plead implied terms, set-off, STBAs, and duty of care.
  • Precise wording of the re-amended defence to be finalised by counsel, with liberty to apply if agreement cannot be reached.