- Fail to plan...plan to fail—the USAF case provides an important insight into the issues surrounding protective claim forms and abuse of process (USAF Nominee No 18 Ltd v Watkin Jones & Son Ltd)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- The Nomura Principle
- The decision on the Nomura Principle
- CPR Part 16.2
- Case details
Construction analysis: This is a case that concerned the key question as to whether at the time of the issue of the claim form (the ‘Claim Form’), the claimant (‘USAF’) was in a position properly to identify the essence of the claim. If the answer to that question was no, the only remedy would be for the Claim Form to be struck out as, at the time of issue, USAF could have had no intention to pursue the proceedings, since it had no known basis to do so. No doubt to the relief of USAF, Mr Justice Eyre held that USAF was in a position to properly identify the essence of its claim and did intend to pursue the claim. USAF was therefore able to continue with its claim. The case provides important insight for legal practitioners and potential claimants and defendants into the relevant considerations when bringing a claim or being the recipient of claim and/or a request for a standstill agreement on the eve of the expiration of the limitation period. Written by Sam Beer, senior associate at Hill Dickinson LLP.
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