Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 04 DECEMBER 2008

Professional Indemnity: Do You Tick All The Right Boxes?

The recent case of Hoddinott is a warning for solicitor insureds that the rules on disputing the jurisdiction of the Court will be applied very strictly.

United KingdomInsurance
Paul Chaplin
Paul Chaplin
Furrha Butt
Furrha Butt

Hoddinott & others v Persimmon Homes (Wessex) Limited [2007]: Beware of the Strict Application of CPR Part 11 - Don't Lose Your Right to Dispute the Court's Jurisdiction

The recent case of Hoddinott is a warning for solicitor insureds that the rules on disputing the jurisdiction of the Court will be applied very strictly.

Background

The claimants applied, without notice to the defendant, to extend the four month time limit for service of the claim form, on the basis that they were awaiting expert evidence to help fully particularise their claim and to do so would facilitate a more economic disposal of the issues during the litigation. The district judge granted the application and extended time for service to 22 November 2006. The claimants then informed the defendant of the extension and enclosed a copy of the claim form for information purposes only. The claim form and full particulars of claim were subsequently served on 21 November 2006.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from