- Court refuses to strike out professional negligence claim on limitation grounds (Evans v PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP)
- What are the practical implications of the judgments?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Striking out and limitation
- Re-amendment of defence
- Re-amendment of particulars of claim
Dispute Resolution analysis: The decisions in Evans v PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP will be of interest to practitioners for the issues they raise relevant to limitation and professional negligence claims. The claimant taxpayers in these proceedings sought damages in negligence and breach of statutory duty from the defendant tax advisor after a tax avoidance scheme it had devised for them turned out to be ineffective. In the first judgment, the court considered the defendant’s application to strike out the claim as statute-barred, its application to re-amend its defence and the claimants’ application to substitute the defendant’s predecessor, a partnership, which had in fact given the advice about setting up the tax avoidance scheme. In the second judgment, the court revisited the issues while addressing applications for costs and an application to amend the particulars of claim. Simon Wilton, barrister, at Hailsham Chambers examines the decisions.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial