Ruling clarifies limits on substituting parties after limitation period has expired
The Court of Appeal has provided important guidance on the limits of substituting defendants after the expiry of a limitation period, reinforcing the strict procedural framework governing amendments to claims once proceedings have been issued.
In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties PL Ltd & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 50, the court considered whether claimants could replace one defendant with another after limitation had expired, where it later became apparent that proceedings had been issued against the wrong legal entity. The case arose from professional negligence claims in which the claimants sought to amend their pleadings so that a different firm would stand in place of the originally named defendant.
The appeal centred on the interaction between section 35 of the Limitation Act 1980 and the Civil Procedure Rules, which permit amendments to statements of case only in limited circumstances once a limitation period has passed. The statutory scheme allows corrections where there has been a genuine mistake as to the name or identity of a party, but it does not permit the addition or substitution of an entirely new defendant where this would effectively introduce a fresh claim outside the limitation period.
At first instance, the court allowed the amendment, concluding that the change could be treated as correcting a mistake as to identity. The substituted defendant appealed, arguing that the amendment went beyond correcting an error and instead sought to introduce a different legal entity after the relevant limitation period had expired.
Allowing the appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the proposed amendment did not fall within the narrow circumstances in which substitution is permitted. The court emphasised that the rules are intended to correct genuine errors, such as misnomers, rather than to enable claimants to pursue claims against parties who had not originally been sued within time. The distinction between correcting a mistake and adding a new party was described as fundamental to the operation of the limitation regime.
In reaching its decision, the court stressed that limitation periods serve an important function in providing certainty and finality for potential defendants. Permitting substitution in circumstances where a different legal entity is introduced after limitation would undermine that certainty and extend statutory time limits beyond what Parliament intended.
The judgment also highlights the practical consequences of issuing proceedings close to the expiry of limitation periods. Where insufficient checks are carried out to confirm the correct identity of the defendant, claimants may find themselves unable to rectify the error once limitation has passed, regardless of the underlying merits of the claim. The court made clear that procedural rules cannot be used to circumvent limitation where statutory requirements are not met.
The decision is likely to be of particular interest to litigators and practitioners involved in professional negligence and commercial disputes, where questions of corporate identity and successor entities frequently arise. It provides a clear reminder that the court’s discretion to permit amendments after limitation is tightly constrained, and that careful investigation before issuing proceedings remains essential.
More broadly, the ruling illustrates how procedural issues can determine the outcome of litigation at an early stage, without the court needing to consider the substantive allegations. For law students and practitioners alike, the case serves as an example of the central role played by limitation and procedural compliance in civil litigation, and the potentially decisive consequences of errors made at the commencement of proceedings.