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

Sidley—Carl Hotton

Sidley—Carl Hotton

Sidley adds insurance mergers and acquisitions partner to London office

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll