Edgeworth Capital (Luxembourg) S.A.R.L. v Cuatrecasas Gonçalves Pereira LLP

Defects in a claim form do not automatically justify striking out a claim. The court should consider whether amendment would achieve justice, applying the Overriding Objective and recognising that strike-out is a draconian last resort.

A defendant’s identity may be corrected where the omission is a genuine mistake as to name, not identity, and the intended defendant is objectively clear. The claim form, pre-action correspondence and particulars may be read together where they were served as part of one procedural exchange and make the claimant’s case clear. An improperly signed statement of truth does not require strike-out where the defect is technical, the claimant has an honest and evidentially supported case, and compliant verification can be supplied by amendment.

The claimant brought a €213m professional negligence and breach of retainer claim against a law firm concerning advice allegedly omitted before the sale of an investment vehicle. The defendant applied under CPR Part 3.4(2)(c) to strike out the claim form for three alleged defects: omission of the defendant’s LLP suffix, failure to specify the proper remedy and claim value, and signature of the statement of truth by an unauthorised person.

The claimant applied to amend the claim form and particulars of claim. The central issues were whether the defects justified strike-out and whether amendment should be permitted despite a potentially applicable contractual limitation period.

1. Disposition. The strike-out application was dismissed subject to the claimant filing and serving an amended claim form verified by an appropriate legal representative. Permission was granted to amend the claim form and particulars of claim.
2. Identity. The omission of “LLP” was a genuine mistake as to name rather than identity. Reading the claim form, the retainer documents, the letters before action and the delivery envelopes together, the only objectively realistic conclusion was that the claimant intended to sue the defendant LLP. Under CPR 17.1(3) and CPR 19.4, permission to correct the name was discretionary. It was just to permit the amendment, even though a contractual limitation period might otherwise be relied on.
3. Relief. Although the claim form was not in orthodox form, the defendant knew from the pre-action correspondence and particulars that the claimant sought monetary compensation for alleged breaches of duty and retainer. Following the approach in Evans v CIG Mon Cymru [2008] 1 WLR 2675, documents served together could be read as a whole. Refusing amendment would elevate form over substance.
4. Statement of truth. Ms Martin was neither a person holding a senior position with the claimant under CPR PD 22 paragraph 3 nor its legal representative under CPR 2.3(1). Her authority from the claimant did not itself satisfy the prescribed categories. Nevertheless, the defect was not substantial in the relevant sense. She had conducted the retainer, appeared to have an honest belief in the pleaded case, and an appropriate representative was willing to verify the amended claim form.
5. General approach. Applying Biguzzi v Rank Leisure Plc [1999] 1 WLR 1926, strike-out should remain a last resort where a just alternative is available. The claimant’s lack of care and the defendant’s opportunistic application were both noted. Consequential matters were adjourned.