Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2008] All ER (D) 260 (Jun)
Neutral Citation: [2008] EWHC 1363 (Ch)
Court: Chancery Division
Judge:

Henderson J

Representation David Cavender (instructed by Dorsey & Whitney) for the first to seventeenth test claimants.
  David Cavender (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP) for the eighteenth test claimant.
  Francis Fitzpatrick (instructed by Farrer & Co LLP) for the nineteenth claimant.
  Rupert Baldry (instructed by solicitor for Revenue and Customs) for the Commissioners.
Judgment Dates: 19 June 2008

Catchwords

Pleading - Limitation - Group litigation order - Mistake - Claimants bringing test claim relating to wrongful payment of advanced corporation tax - Claimants seeking to rely upon cause of action in mistake - Issues arising in relation to limitation - Whether claim forms disclosing cause of action in mistake - s 32(1)(c) - s 320 - Civil Procedure Rules 1998, , Pts 7, 8.

The Case

Even where multiple proceedings were being managed through a group litigation order (GLO), the individual claim forms had still to satisfy the basic pleading requirement of setting out the material facts relied upon and the causes of action to which they related. The necessary information could be pleaded in a concise and summary form, particularly if the procedure under Pt8 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, was adopted and the facts were unlikely to be disputed; but in the absence of that basic minimum, the claim form would not fulfil its primary purpose of defining the issues and enabling the defendant to know what case it had to meet. Nevertheless, in the context of a GLO, the claim form needed to be no more than the simple set of documents, and fell to be construed in conjunction with the application to register and, from the time of registration, the register of common issues itself.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.