England and Wales Case Law

Adcamp LLP v Office Properties PL Limited & Ors

The second gateway under s.35(6)(b) Limitation Act 1980 and CPR 19.6(3)(b) does not permit substitution of a defendant after expiry of the limitation period where the original claim was brought against the wrong party due to a mistake as to identity, not name. The original and new claims are not the same in substance because the identity of the defendant is a material element. The statutory scheme deliberately restricts the circumstances in which substitution is allowed after limitation, and the court has no general discretion to expand those circumstances.

Source excerpt

• Amendment of pleadings
• Addition and substitution of parties
• Limitation periods
• Mistake in party identity
• Interpretation of cpr 19.6 and limitation act 1980 s.35

Read case analysis

Dr Paul David Blakeman v University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust

The High Court dismissed an appeal against refusal to amend pleadings after limitation had expired in a medical negligence claim.

• Amendment of pleadings
• Limitation period
• Medical negligence
• Discretion under cpr 17
• Section 33 limitation act 1980
• Amendment-of-pleadings

Read case analysis

AB & Ors v Leicestershire County Council

AB & Ors v Leicestershire County Council [2026] EWHC 331 (KB) (17 February 2026)

The High Court considered limitation and liability claims arising from alleged child abuse at The Beeches children’s home, but held the claims time-barred and entered judgment for the defendant.

• Vicarious liability
• Sexual abuse
• Physical abuse
• Limitation act 1980 section 33
• Discretionary exclusion of limitation
• Evidential cogency

Read case analysis

AB & Ors v Leicestershire County Council

The court held that long delays in abuse claims caused serious evidential prejudice and refused to disapply limitation, so the claims were dismissed as statute-barred.

• Vicarious liability
• Sexual abuse claims
• Limitation periods
• Discretion to disapply limitation
• Evidential prejudice
• Child abuse

Read case analysis

Lloyds Developments Limited v Accor S.A

The Claimant failed to show a good reason for extending time for service of the claim form. The extension would deprive the Defendant of an arguable limitation defence, and there was material non-disclosure by the Claimant regarding the limitation issue. The extension of time is set aside, and the court has no jurisdiction to try the claim.

Source excerpt

• Extension of time for service
• Service out of jurisdiction
• Limitation period
• Material non-disclosure
• Jurisdictional challenge

Read case analysis

Captain Nigel Collingwood & Anor v Irwin Mitchell LLP

High Court ruling on a professional negligence claim over pension-fraud advice, refusing strike out on limitation grounds and allowing substitution of the defendant.

• Limitation period in negligence
• Substitution of parties
• Mistake in party identity
• Successor liability
• Summary judgment
• Strike out applications

Read case analysis

Matrix Receivables Limited v Musst Holdings Limited

High Court unjust enrichment dispute over fund-introduction fees. Matrix Receivables recovered shares of management fees, but not performance fees; earlier claims were time-barred.

• Quantum meruit
• Assignment of claims
• Counter-restitution
• Statute barred claims
• Distribution agreements
• Unjust-enrichment

Read case analysis

The Occupiers of Samuel Garside House v Bellway Homes Limited & Anor

Service of claim form by appropriate method, even if out of time, triggers CPR time limits for acknowledgment of service and jurisdiction challenge. Defendant must seek relief from sanctions for late acknowledgment and jurisdiction challenge. Relief from sanctions was refused due to serious breach and lack of good reason. Extension of time for particulars of claim was granted due to short delay and prompt application. Addition of new claimants was allowed, with joinder deemed at date of order and limitation issues reserved for trial.

Source excerpt

• Late service of claim form
• Relief from sanctions
• Jurisdiction challenge
• Extension of time
• Addition of parties
• Limitation act 1980

Read case analysis

Investment Bank PSC v Ahmad Mohammad El-Husseini & Ors

Permission to make the Proposed Amendments is refused because they are very late, would require extensive further procedural steps that cannot be completed before trial, would prejudice fair trial preparation, and would necessitate adjournment of the trial. Additionally, many amendments are arguably time-barred, do not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as existing claims, and are not properly pleaded or particularised. The Bank failed to discharge the heavy burden required for late amendments, and the interests of justice and the overriding objective require refusal.

Source excerpt

• Amendment of pleadings
• Section 423 insolvency act 1986
• Limitation act 1980
• Late amendments
• Pleading fraud and dishonesty

Read case analysis

Maxima Creditor Resolutions Ltd v Fealy & Anor

Maxima Creditor Resolutions Ltd v Fealy & Anor [2024] EWHC 2694 (Ch) (01 November 2024)

The High Court held that the defendants were not liable under Insolvency Act s.217 because the company fell within the third excepted case in rule 22.7.

• Restriction on re-use of company name
• Personal liability of directors
• Dormant company definition
• Assignment of debts
• Limitation period
• Acknowledgment of debt

Read case analysis