Evans v CIG Mon Cymru Ltd

At the permission stage, it was arguable that a claim form could be amended after expiry of limitation where the claim form and documents served with it, read together, clearly identified the intended claim. The amendment would remain subject to the restriction against abuse of process. Prior correspondence could support the conclusion that the defendant understood the claim, but later documents could not retrospectively create a different intention. The court granted permission without finally determining the substantive limitation issue.

The claimant, who had been a minor when injured at work, issued a claim form shortly before the limitation period expired. Its brief details referred to abuse at work, but the Particulars of Claim and medical report served with it concerned only a hand injury. The defendant contended that the hand-injury claim was out of time under section 11 of the Limitation Act 1980.

The Chester County Court upheld the District Judge’s decision. On a renewed application, the Court of Appeal considered whether the claim form could be amended to reflect the claim identified by the accompanying documents, and whether the proposed appeal raised an important point of principle with a real prospect of success.

1. Permission granted. This was a renewed application for permission to appeal and an application for permission for a second appeal. The relevant criteria under rule 52.3 required an important point of principle or practice and a real prospect of success.
2. The court considered it reasonably arguable that an action was brought in time where the documents served together, read as a whole, made clear what claim was being advanced, even though the claim form alone misidentified it. In such a case, the claim form could be corrected after expiry of the limitation period, provided there was no abuse of process.
3. The court referred to Sterman v Moore [1970] 1 QB 596, where an inadequate writ was supplemented after limitation had expired because the defendant knew the claim being made. The passage in that case referred to Chatsworth Investments v Cussins Contractors Limited [1969] 1 WLR 1 and Weldon v Neale [1887] 19 (QB) 394.
4. The proposed appeal was arguable because the mismatch between the claim form and the accompanying Particulars of Claim and medical report was obvious. Prior correspondence also indicated that the defendant understood the relevant claim. An amendment would be abusive if the claimant had originally intended only the claim stated in the issued document and later sought to change that intention through documents served afterwards. The court considered that this was not the present case.
5. Lord Justice Mummery had initially considered that the appeal lacked a real prospect of success, having regard to CPR rules 17.1 and 17.4 and sections 11 and 35 of the Limitation Act 1980. He accepted, however, that Sterman v Moore [1970] 1 QB 596 and the decision of Cooke J in the Nomura case made the issue reasonably arguable. The application was granted.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 8 August 2007, the court granted the renewed application for permission to appeal.
• Chester County Court: His Honour Judge Halbert, on 19 March 2007, upheld the District Judge’s decision of 18 December 2006.