Elysa Alton v Powszechny Zaklad Ubezpieczen
[2024] EWCA Civ 1435
The Tintometer Limited & Anor v Pitmans (a firm) & Anor
21 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 370 (Ch)
High Court
A company sued the wrong solicitors for bad advice. Even though it took a long time to fix the mistake, the court let them sue the right solicitors because the delays weren't the company's fault. The court said it's more important to get the right people involved than to stick rigidly to strict rules about timing.
Key Facts
- •Claimants allege negligent advice by solicitors (Pitmans) regarding a pension scheme.
- •Claim issued against incorrect defendants (Adcamp and BDBP) in April 2021, served in September 2023 after multiple time extensions.
- •Claim form amended to substitute Pitmans as the correct defendant.
- •Defendants apply to strike out the claim, arguing the time extensions should be set aside or the amendment disallowed.
- •Defendants initially failed to formally contest jurisdiction under CPR r. 11.
- •Claim against Adcamp is no longer pursued; claim against bankrupt partner (Davies) is dropped.
Legal Principles
Procedure for disputing jurisdiction under CPR r. 11.
CPR r. 11
Power to correct procedural errors under CPR r. 3.10.
CPR r. 3.10
Rules governing extension of time for service of claim form (CPR r. 7.5, r. 7.6, PD 7A).
CPR r. 7.5, r. 7.6, PD 7A
Setting aside orders made without a hearing (CPR r. 23.8, r. 3.3(4)-(6), PD 23A).
CPR r. 23.8, r. 3.3(4)-(6), PD 23A
Substitution of a defendant (CPR r. 17.1(1), r. 17.2, r. 19.4, r. 19.6).
CPR r. 17.1(1), r. 17.2, r. 19.4, r. 19.6
Limitation periods under s. 14A of the Limitation Act 1980.
s. 14A Limitation Act 1980
Case law on jurisdiction and setting aside orders (Hoddinott v Persimmon Homes, Pitalia v NHS England, Kuznetsov v Camden, Insight Group v Kingston Smith, American Leisure v Olswang).
Hoddinott v Persimmon Homes [2007] EWCA Civ 1203, Pitalia v NHS England [2023] EWCA Civ 657, Kuznetsov v Camden [2019] EWHC 3910 (Admin), Insight Group v Kingston Smith [2012] EWHC 3644 (QB), American Leisure v Olswang [2015] EWHC 629 (Ch)
Outcomes
Defendants' application to strike out the claim against Pitmans dismissed.
The court found the time extensions were properly granted, and the substitution of Pitmans as a defendant was justified despite the delay. The defendants' procedural errors regarding jurisdiction were rectified under CPR r. 3.10.
Application to strike out the claim against Adcamp not opposed; claim against bankrupt partner (Davies) dropped.
Claimants no longer pursue the claim against Adcamp and agreed to the removal of Davies.