Counsel met with the operators of a London public house after it emerged that the claimants’ solicitors had issued proceedings at the end of the limitation period but had served them on the landlord rather than the operating company. The operators confirmed that they maintain a good relationship with the landlord and intend to ask them not to respond until they have received counsel’s advice. Counsel explained that the claimants’ solicitors appear inexperienced in litigation and have made a significant procedural error by naming and serving the wrong defendant, despite having been provided with the correct entity’s details from the outset of pre‑action correspondence. The operators queried whether the limitation period had expired and whether the claimants’ mistake prevents them from pursuing the correct party.
The central issue concerns the procedural validity of the claim. Although proceedings were issued within the limitation period, they were served on the wrong party. Counsel explained that the law does allow for substitution of defendants in certain circumstances, meaning the claimants may attempt to correct their error. If the landlord does not respond, the claimants could obtain default judgment against the wrong party and then seek to amend the proceedings. The operators asked whether they should remain silent or take proactive steps, and counsel emphasised that once proceedings are issued, the matter is under the court’s control. The landlord, as the named defendant, is entitled to respond and may need legal representation. The operators also queried whether the matter was now effectively concluded, given the claimants’ mistake.
Counsel advised that silence is not an appropriate strategy, as it risks default judgment against the landlord. The correct approach is for the landlord to file an acknowledgment of service and a defence, indicating an intention to apply for strike‑out or summary judgment on the basis that the claimants sued the wrong party. Counsel will place a note on the court file making clear that any attempt to amend or substitute parties must be notified to him. The operators, not being named in the proceedings, currently have no standing, but the claimants may attempt to substitute them as defendants. Counsel’s strategy is to pre‑empt this by demonstrating that the claimants had the correct information from the outset and that their error is not a minor technicality but a fundamental failure. The operators will speak to the landlord and revert to counsel’s clerks for the next steps.
Call us – Mon-Fri 8:30am – 6:30pm
+44 (0) 20 3034 0077
By submitting this form, I accept this website’s Privacy Policy