header-logo header-logo

28 May 2010
Issue: 7419 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Limitation of action

Roberts v Gill & Co and others [2010] UKSC 22, [2010] All ER (D) 180 (May)

The claimant brought an action against a solicitor regarding allegedly negligent administration of an estate. On appeal the primary question issue was whether an amendment sought by the claimant to his action could be made notwithstanding expiry of the limitation period, pursuant to s 35 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) and CPR 19.5 in respect of his personal claim.
In particular, the main question was whether, in order to be able to carry on his claim, the claimant would need not only to alter the claim so that he was suing on behalf of the estate, but also to add the administrator as a defendant. If he did have to add the administrator, a further question arose as to what would have to be added at the time at which he altered his claim or whether he could do so later.

The Supreme Court ruled that CPR 19.5(2)(b) and 19.5(3)(b) (giving effect to s 35(5)(b) and 6(b) of LA 1980) stated that the addition of the administrator was necessary

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll