header-logo header-logo

28 May 2010
Issue: 7419 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Limitation of action

Roberts v Gill & Co and others [2010] UKSC 22, [2010] All ER (D) 180 (May)

The claimant brought an action against a solicitor regarding allegedly negligent administration of an estate. On appeal the primary question issue was whether an amendment sought by the claimant to his action could be made notwithstanding expiry of the limitation period, pursuant to s 35 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) and CPR 19.5 in respect of his personal claim.
In particular, the main question was whether, in order to be able to carry on his claim, the claimant would need not only to alter the claim so that he was suing on behalf of the estate, but also to add the administrator as a defendant. If he did have to add the administrator, a further question arose as to what would have to be added at the time at which he altered his claim or whether he could do so later.

The Supreme Court ruled that CPR 19.5(2)(b) and 19.5(3)(b) (giving effect to s 35(5)(b) and 6(b) of LA

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll