The Tintometer Ltd & Anor v Pitmans (a firm) & Anor [2024] EWHC 370 (Ch) (21 February 2024)

The Tintometer Ltd & Anor v Pitmans (a firm) & Anor [2024] EWHC 370 (Ch) (21 February 2024)

Pitmans, as a party joined after extension of time orders were made, does not have standing to apply to set aside those orders under CPR r. 3.3(5). Procedural errors in contesting jurisdiction are technical and may be remedied under CPR r. 3.10. Extensions of time granted by agreement under CPR r. 2.11 are valid for purposes of CPR r. 7.6(2). Substitution of Pitmans as defendant was necessary due to mistake in original party identification and is permitted under CPR r. 19.6.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 370 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: The Tintometer Limited; Claimant: Winterbourne Trustee Services Limited; Defendant: Pitmans (A Firm); Defendant: Adcamp LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Strike Out Application / Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application to strike out claim against Pitmans dismissed; claim against Adcamp struck out by consent; claim against Mr Davies not pursued.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Service, Substitution of Parties, Jurisdiction, Limitation Period, Professional Negligence Protocol
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Pensions Extension of Time for Service Substitution of Parties Jurisdiction Limitation Period Professional Negligence Protocol

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Tintometer Limited

Claimant

Winterbourne Trustee Services Limited

Claimant

Pitmans (A Firm)

Defendant

Adcamp LLP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Strike Out Application / Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants should have expressly contested jurisdiction under CPR r. 11
  2. 2 Whether Pitmans has standing to apply to set aside extension of time orders
  3. 3 Whether extension of time orders should be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

Pitmans, as a party joined after extension of time orders were made, does not have standing to apply to set aside those orders under CPR r. 3.3(5). Procedural errors in contesting jurisdiction are technical and may be remedied under CPR r. 3.10. Extensions of time granted by agreement under CPR r. 2.11 are valid for purposes of CPR r. 7.6(2). Substitution of Pitmans as defendant was necessary due to mistake in original party identification and is permitted under CPR r. 19.6.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out claim against Pitmans dismissed; claim against Adcamp struck out by consent; claim against Mr Davies not pursued.

Orders

  • Defendants' procedural errors in contesting jurisdiction remedied under CPR r. 3.10.
  • Pitmans' application to set aside extension of time orders dismissed for lack of standing.