A law firm has failed to strike out a negligence claim against it on the basis the claimants put the wrong name on their claim form. 

Reading-based Pitmans is accused of giving negligent advice in relation to a pension scheme to its clients - the employer that funds the scheme and the scheme trustee, the High Court heard. It was alleged that solicitors failed to advise that an amendment to the scheme made by way of a 2009 deed was ineffective.

The clients, The Tintometer and Winterbourne Trustee Services, issued a claim form in April 2021 which named the defendants as Adcamp and BDB Pitmans (BDBP).

Pitmans, which was first trading as a traditional unincorporated partnership, had changed its name to Adcamp, an LLP which later acquired the business of the partnership. That business, which carried on as an LLP, was later acquired by BDBP.

Michael Colledge, the partner at Blake Morgan with conduct of the case for the claimants, told the court that his initial Companies House search revealed Adcamp had been incorporated on 19 June, 2008.  

Given that incorporation date, he had concluded this was the entity which had given the advice to the claimants. But he did not know that Adcamp was dormant at that stage.

Although the claim form was originally issued in April 2021, it was not served until September 2023 - following extensions of time - at which point it had been amended to substitute Pitmans as the first defendant and Adcamp as the second. The claim against Adcamp is not being pursued.

Benjamin Wood, for Pitmans, argued the court should disallow the substitution on the grounds of delay and the consequent prejudice to Pitmans. He argued the partners of Pitmans should ‘not be vexed’ by this matter.

But Mrs Justice Bacon said: ‘Most defendants do not wish to be vexed by a claim against them. That is not a reason to disallow the substitution of a defendant.’

In The Tintometer v Pitmans she ruled: ‘BDBP, Adcamp and now Pitmans are and have been represented by the same set of solicitors, and are also covered by the same insurers. The commercial reality is that the substitution of Pitmans will make no difference to the defence of the claim.’

The defendants’ application to strike out the claim against Pitmans was therefore dismissed. An application to strike out the claim against Adcamp was not opposed.

 

This article is now closed for comment.