header-logo header-logo

03 September 2009 / David Dabbs
Issue: 7383 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Shutting the stable door

David Dabbs watches statutory time limits passing by

Every good litigator ensures that all causes of action available to the (correct) client are pleaded out and incorporated within the statement of case before the limitation period expires: for the court’s residual discretion to permit an amendment after the expiry of a critical limitation period (CPR Pt 17, r 4) is severely restricted. Once the statutory time limit has expired the court has no discretion to permit an amendment which has the effect of adding a new cause of action or adding/swapping a party who may have known enough to appreciate that he had a cause of action during the limitation period, but let it pass (Limitation Act 1980, s 35). An attempt to amend after expiry would likely be an abuse of process and struck out [CPR Pt 3.4(2)(b)]—a classic case of trying to shut the door after the horse has bolted.
 

Exception
 

The trouble is, every litigator also knows that there is usually at least one exception to every rule; and

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll