header-logo header-logo

07 June 2007 / Andreas Gledhill
Issue: 7276 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

A cautionary tale

Andreas Gledhill explains the pitfalls of using protective claims

Faced with the imminent expiry of a limitation period, litigators acting for a potential claimant often seek to safeguard their client’s position by issuing a protective claim. They may have only a partial understanding of the facts, and may not have worked out how to put the case: so they issue a generally indorsed claim form to stop limitation running while they try to find out more, but hold off serving the defendant in the meantime.

Until now, this practice has largely gone unchallenged. That is set to change in the light of Mr Justice Cooke’s recent decision in Nomura International plc v Granada Group Ltd [2007] EWHC 642 (Comm), [2007] All ER (D) 404 (Mar).

PROTECTIVE CLAIMS

The practice of issuing protective claims appears to have grown up in the 1960s. One of the earliest references in a reported case is Rowe v Tregaskes [1968] 3 All ER 447, [1968] 1 WLR 1475, where Lord Denning MR referred to the claimant’s issue of “....what

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll