The High Court has handed down a significant judgment on the breadth of the Court’s power to order substitution under r 19.6 CPR after the end of the limitation period.

Earlier this year, in Office Properties PL Limited (in liquidation) v Adcamp LLP [2025] EWHC 170 (Ch), Mr David Halpern KC interpreted the Court’s power to order the substitution of a party under r 19.6(3)(b) in a way that more readily permits substitution. In Lee v BDB Pitmans LLP [2025] EWHC 2881 (Ch), Ms Caroline Shea KC reasoned independently to the same interpretation of the rule, but, as the Court of Appeal is to hear an appeal in Office Properties, granted the Defendant permission to appeal.

The Deputy Judges in both instances were concerned with the alleged liability of predecessors to the firm now known as Broadfield Law UK LLP (“Broadfield”). Pitmans subsequently ‘merged’ with Bircham Dyson Bell LLP before Bircham Dyson Bell LLP was re-named as BDB Pitmans LLP and, later, Broadfield Law UK LLP. The published accounts of the merging entities carried a statement that Broadfield had “acquired” the liabilities of Pitmans and that Pitmans had “transferred” its liabilities to Broadfield, and that Pitmans’ assets and liabilities were nil. Based on those representations, the claimants sued Broadfield for Pitmans’ alleged negligence.

The proceedings were commenced shortly before the limitation period expired and, after the limitation period expired, Broadfield applied for reverse summary judgment on the basis that it had no liability for Pitmans’ negligence. The claimants based their claim against Broadfield on an implied novation of Pitmans’ liability, an estoppel, or, alternatively, the doctrine of acknowledgment. The Deputy Judge considered each of those arguments to be sufficiently arguable to defeat a summary judgment application — and in the alternative made an interim declaration that, if those arguments were to fail at trial, Pitmans would be substituted as defendant in Broadfield’s place.

Ryan Turner, instructed by Martin Scott and Sarah Proctor of Milners Solicitors, appeared on behalf of the successful claimants, led by Thomas Grant KC of Wilberforce Chambers, with assistance from Olivia Horn.

Read the full judgment: Lee v BDB Pitmans LLP [2025] EWHC 2881 (Ch)