The Tintometer Limited & Anor v Pitmans (a firm) & Anor

The Tintometer Limited & Anor v Pitmans (a firm) & Anor

Pitmans did not have standing to set aside the extension of time orders made before it became a party. The orders were properly made, and there was no unreasonable delay or prejudice justifying disallowing the substitution of Pitmans as a defendant. The claimants acted with reasonable diligence, and the procedural errors by the defendants were technical and correctable under CPR r. 3.10. The application to strike out the claim against Pitmans is dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: The Tintometer Limited; Claimant: Winterbourne Trustee Services Limited; Defendant: Pitmans (A Firm); Defendant: Adcamp LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (professional Negligence) / Application to Strike Out Claim and Set Aside Orders
Outcome
Application to strike out claim against Pitmans dismissed; application to strike out claim against Adcamp not opposed; Mr Davies to be removed from the claim.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Service, Substitution of Parties, Limitation Period, Jurisdictional Challenge, Setting Aside Orders
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Extension of Time for Service Substitution of Parties Limitation Period Jurisdictional Challenge Setting Aside Orders

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

Parties

The Tintometer Limited

Claimant

Winterbourne Trustee Services Limited

Claimant

Pitmans (A Firm)

Defendant

Adcamp LLP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (professional Negligence) / Application to Strike Out Claim and Set Aside Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants should have expressly contested jurisdiction under CPR r. 11 and if the error can be corrected under CPR r. 3.10
  2. 2 Whether Pitmans has standing to apply to set aside extension of time orders made before it became a party
  3. 3 Whether the extension of time orders should be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

Pitmans did not have standing to set aside the extension of time orders made before it became a party. The orders were properly made, and there was no unreasonable delay or prejudice justifying disallowing the substitution of Pitmans as a defendant. The claimants acted with reasonable diligence, and the procedural errors by the defendants were technical and correctable under CPR r. 3.10. The application to strike out the claim against Pitmans is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out claim against Pitmans dismissed; application to strike out claim against Adcamp not opposed; Mr Davies to be removed from the claim.

Orders

  • Claim against Pitmans proceeds
  • Claim against Adcamp struck out (not opposed)