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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll