Evans & Anor v Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP

Evans & Anor v Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP

The claimants have a realistic prospect of resisting the limitation defence because it is arguable that actionable damage was not suffered until 2013 when the tax liability became certain, and there were continuing breaches of duty within the limitation period. The defendant is permitted to amend its defence to reflect its incorporation date, and the claimants are permitted to substitute the partnership as defendant due to a genuine mistake.

Parties
Claimant: Sir Christopher Evans; Claimant: Lady Anne Evans; Defendant: PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil (professional Negligence) / Interlocutory Application (strike Out/summary Judgment and Amendment Applications)
Outcome
Defendant's strike-out and summary judgment applications refused; defendant granted leave to amend defence; claimants granted leave to substitute correct defendant; claimants' application to further amend particulars of claim refused.
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods, Negligence by Professional Advisers, Substitution of Parties, Amendment of Pleadings
Professional Negligence Limitation Law Limitation Periods Negligence by Professional Advisers Substitution of Parties 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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sir Christopher Evans

Claimant

Lady Anne Evans

Claimant

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (professional Negligence) / Interlocutory Application (strike Out/summary Judgment and Amendment Applications)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim is statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether the claimants suffered actionable damage before the limitation period expired
  3. 3 Whether the defendant can amend its defence to reflect its incorporation date

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants have a realistic prospect of resisting the limitation defence because it is arguable that actionable damage was not suffered until 2013 when the tax liability became certain, and there were continuing breaches of duty within the limitation period. The defendant is permitted to amend its defence to reflect its incorporation date, and the claimants are permitted to substitute the partnership as defendant due to a genuine mistake.

Court Disposition

Defendant's strike-out and summary judgment applications refused; defendant granted leave to amend defence; claimants granted leave to substitute correct defendant; claimants' application to further amend particulars of claim refused.

Orders

  • Strike-out and summary judgment applications dismissed
  • Defendant granted permission to re-amend defence to reflect incorporation date