James Lonsdale & Ors. v Wedlake Bell LLP & Ors.

James Lonsdale & Ors. v Wedlake Bell LLP & Ors.

The July Claim Form was not served within the extended period, no estoppel arose, no good reason existed to validate non-compliant service, and no exceptional circumstances justified dispensing with service; therefore, the court has no jurisdiction to hear the claims in the July Claim Form.

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 / Interlocutory Application—jurisdiction and Service of Claim Form
Outcome
Claimants' application dismissed; Defendants' application succeeds.
Legal Topics
Service of Claim Form, Extension of Time, Promissory Estoppel, Limitation Periods, Dispensing With Service
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Service of Claim Form Extension of Time Promissory Estoppel Limitation Periods Dispensing With Service

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 Amounts and remedies 3
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 / Interlocutory Application—jurisdiction and Service of Claim Form

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 service period
  3. 3 Whether the court should treat steps taken as good service under CPR r. 6.15(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The July Claim Form was not served within the extended period, no estoppel arose, no good reason existed to validate non-compliant service, and no exceptional circumstances justified dispensing with service; therefore, the court has no jurisdiction to hear the claims in the July Claim Form.

Court Disposition

Claimants' application dismissed; Defendants' application succeeds.

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.