Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
In Chandra and another v Brooke North (a firm) and another; BPC Hotels Ltd v Brooke North (a firm) and another  All ER (D) 88 (Dec), the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against a permission to amend decision. The proposed amendments sought to introduce a new cause of action after the expiry of the limitation period. In doing so, the Court of Appeal considered sections 35(3) and 14A of the Limitation Act 1980, as well as the following authorities: Welsh Development Agency (WDA), Steamship Mutual and TetraPak. This judgment is, however, of particular interest in relation to its practical guidance to practitioners on the options available to the court on an amendment application which raises limitation issues.
Note: the proposed amendments should be considered by reference to the 'original' statement of case rather than the claim form as the statement of claim should be narrower in its scope, or
If the claimant applies for permission to amend and there is likely to be an objection on the basis the new claim it seeks to introduce is statute barred, it should take steps to 'protect itself'. The most obvious step would be to issue new proceedings in respect of the claim. This would 'stop the clock' on any limitation issues and mean the claimant is more likely to be able to pursue its 'new claim' even if permission to amend to include that new claim is refused.
Note: For more information on various issues raised in this application, subscribers to Lexis®PSL can see: Amending a statement of case and Limitation—overview.
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Judges: Lord Justice Jackson (leading judgment) with Lord Justices Laws and McFarlane (in agreement)
Date of judgment: 5 December 2013
Note: subscribers to Lexis®PSL can access our detailed analysis of the lower court's decision under appeal in the instant application by clicking this link: CPR 23.10 and applications to revoke or setting aside an order made without a hearing (Chandra v Brooke North).
This article was first published on Lexis®PSL Dispute Resolution on 11 December 2013. Click here for a free 24 trial of Lexis®PSL.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial. See our full terms here.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
Virginia specialises in general domestic and international commercial litigation, arbitration and alternative dispute resolution.
Virginia trained, qualified and practiced with Pinsent Masons before moving to Marriott Harrison where she continued in practice for a further seven years.
In practice, Virginia acted in a variety of general commercial disputes covering areas including intellectual property, fraud, defamation, misrepresentation, breach of contract, debt recovery, breach of restrictive covenants and company and shareholders’ disputes.
Virginia is Head of Dispute Resolution at Lexis®PSL and, when not focused on the strategic development and operational requirements of the Dispute Resolution module, her content work focuses on case management and evidence in civil litigation. She also regularly contributes to the LexisNexis Dispute Resolution Blog.
0330 161 1234