Brightside Group Ltd & Ors v RSM UK Audit LLP & Anor

Brightside Group Ltd & Ors v RSM UK Audit LLP & Anor

Service of the claim form was not effected by the CPR 7.7 notice deadline as the deemed date of service under CPR 6.14 was after the deadline; however, the court declined to dismiss the claim as CPR 7.7 does not require automatic dismissal and the purposes of the rule were substantially met without prejudice to the defendants.

Parties
Claimant: Brightside Group Limited; Claimant: Brightside Insurance Services Limited; Claimant: Panacea Finance Limited; Defendant: RSM UK Audit LLP; Defendant: RSM Corporate Finance LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim (audit Negligence, Due Diligence Negligence) / Application to Dismiss Claim for Non Compliance With CPR 7.7 Notice
Outcome
Application to dismiss claim refused; timetable for Defence and Reply set.
Legal Topics
Service of Claim Form, CPR 7.7 Notices, Limitation Periods, Jurisdiction, Audit Negligence
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Service of Claim Form CPR 7.7 Notices Limitation Periods Jurisdiction Audit Negligence

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brightside Group Limited

Claimant

Brightside Insurance Services Limited

Claimant

Panacea Finance Limited

Claimant

RSM UK Audit LLP

Defendant

RSM Corporate Finance LLP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim (audit Negligence, Due Diligence Negligence) / Application to Dismiss Claim for Non Compliance With CPR 7.7 Notice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of the claim form complied with CPR 7.7 notice deadline
  2. 2 Whether the deemed date of service under CPR 6.14 governs compliance with CPR 7.7
  3. 3 Whether non-compliance with CPR 7.7 notice should result in dismissal of the claim

Ratio Decidendi

Service of the claim form was not effected by the CPR 7.7 notice deadline as the deemed date of service under CPR 6.14 was after the deadline; however, the court declined to dismiss the claim as CPR 7.7 does not require automatic dismissal and the purposes of the rule were substantially met without prejudice to the defendants.

Court Disposition

Application to dismiss claim refused; timetable for Defence and Reply set.

Orders

  • Application for dismissal of claim refused
  • Timetable set for service of Defence and Reply