Janna Purdie & Ruth Pratt look at “causes of action” & go back to basics
Litigation is littered with terminology but how often do we stop to think about what these terms mean and how they impact on the strategy we adopt in a case?
In a recent Court of Appeal judgment Longmore LJ found himself going back to basics to explain a “cause of action”, perhaps one of the most pivotal terms in litigation (Berezovsky v Abramovich [2011] EWCA Civ 153, [2011] All ER (D) 253 (Feb)).
Mr Abramovich had taken issue with amendments proposed by Mr Berezovsky on the basis they constituted new claims and were time barred by s 35 of the Limitation Act 1980 (the Act). Longmore LJ gave the leading judgment with which LJJ Stanley Burnton and Laws agreed.
While one might think it would be a straightforward exercise to determine whether amendments constituted a new claim, that is not how it was approached in this case. Longmore LJ noted he was not persuaded by Mr Abramovich’s “rather over-elaborate arguments” to justify his contention that the amendments constituted
