Lonsdale & Ors v Wedlake Bell Llp & Ors [2022] EWHC 2169 (QB) (19 August 2022)

Lonsdale & Ors v Wedlake Bell Llp & Ors [2022] EWHC 2169 (QB) (19 August 2022)

The July Claim Form was not served within the extended period, no valid further extension was agreed, and the defendants made no representation capable of founding estoppel. The claimants failed to take reasonable steps to serve or agree a further extension. There is no good reason to validate service under CPR 6.15(2) or dispense with service under CPR 6.16. The court has no jurisdiction to hear the claims in the July Claim Form.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2169 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: James Lonsdale; Claimant: Laura Lonsdale; Claimant: Jonathan Greig; Claimant: Dane Halling; Claimant: Leonora Lonsdale; Claimant: Rosanna Lonsdale; Claimant: Arthur Lonsdale; Claimant: Esme Lonsdale; Defendant: Wedlake Bell LLP; Defendant: Cumberland Ellis LLP; Defendant: Ann Stanyer; Defendant: QBE UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Set Aside Service and Jurisdictional Challenge
Outcome
Claimants' application dismissed; Defendants' application granted.
Legal Topics
Service of Claim Form, Extension of Time, Promissory Estoppel, CPR 6.15, CPR 6.16, Limitation
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Service of Claim Form Extension of Time Promissory Estoppel CPR 6.15 CPR 6.16 Limitation

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Lonsdale

Claimant

Laura Lonsdale

Claimant

Jonathan Greig

Claimant

Dane Halling

Claimant

Leonora Lonsdale

Claimant

Rosanna Lonsdale

Claimant

Arthur Lonsdale

Claimant

Esme Lonsdale

Claimant

Wedlake Bell LLP

Defendant

Cumberland Ellis LLP

Defendant

Ann Stanyer

Defendant

QBE UK Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Set Aside Service and Jurisdictional Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the July Claim Form was validly served within the extended period
  2. 2 Whether the defendants are estopped from relying on expiry of the July Claim Form
  3. 3 Whether the court should validate service under CPR 6.15(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The July Claim Form was not served within the extended period, no valid further extension was agreed, and the defendants made no representation capable of founding estoppel. The claimants failed to take reasonable steps to serve or agree a further extension. There is no good reason to validate service under CPR 6.15(2) or dispense with service under CPR 6.16. The court has no jurisdiction to hear the claims in the July Claim Form.

Court Disposition

Claimants' application dismissed; Defendants' application granted.

Orders

  • Service of the July Claim Form on 19 January 2022 is set aside.
  • Court has no jurisdiction to hear the claims in the July Claim Form.