header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
09 October 2008
Issue: 7340 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Limitation and substitution

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Ling Ong, London Market FOIL

NLJ Career Profile: Ling Ong, London Market FOIL

Ling Ong, partner at Weightmans and president of London Market FOIL, discusses her biggest inspirations, the challenges of AI and the importance of tackling unconscious bias

DWF—Imogen Francis

DWF—Imogen Francis

Director and head of IP team joins in Birmingham

Penningtons Manches Cooper—five promotions

Penningtons Manches Cooper—five promotions

Firm boosts partnership and costs practice with five senior promotions

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll