Article summary
Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The case arose from a claim with a significant error: it was brought against the wrong party. Furthermore, that error was not discovered until after limitation had expired. The practical significance of this case is that the situation may be remediable by substituting the correct party for the original wrong party under the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980). The correct defendant was the claimants’ former solicitors, and the claimants had believed the original defendant, a successor firm, was legally liable for the former solicitor’s wrongdoing. The court permitted the amendment substituting the correct defendant. It held that the claimants were asserting the same professional negligence claim but pursuing it against a new party, as opposed to asserting a different claim. The court did not seek to ‘punish’ the claimants for the error of their legal representatives and was prepared to excuse the mistake. Written by Heather Murphy, barrister...
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial