In this article for LexisNexis Heather Murphy provides a case analysis on Office Properties PL Ltd (in liquidation) v Adcamp LLP exploring the practical implications of the case, the background of the matter and the decision of the court.
Article summary
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.
Published on: 06 March 2025
