header-logo header-logo

09 October 2008
Issue: 7340 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Limitation and substitution

Janna Purdie considers how courts deal with the addition/substitution of parties after the expiry of limitation periods

Limitation periods to add/substitute parties

The court, in considering whether to grant an application to substitute parties after the expiry of the limitation period, sets out when CPR 17.4 and CPR 19.5 apply. The court also sets out the basis on which it exercised its discretion when considering whether or not to grant the applications.
Facts of the case

A flooding incident occurred at a treatment works causing damage to an electricity substation owned by Manweb. The court heard two applications by the claimants in two consolidated proceedings to amend claim forms and statements of case. In both cases, the limitation period had expired. The applications were for the addition/substitution of parties under CPR 17.4 or CPR 19.5. The applicants maintained that they had been genuinely mistaken about the name of the original parties. In each claim, the intended parties were identified in the statements of case as being the owner/occupier of the treatment works and the main contractor of

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: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

back-to-top-scroll