PeCe Beheer BV & Anor v Alevere Ltd & Ors
Decision date: 3 March 2016
Neutral citation: [2016] EWHC 434 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
Clinics counterclaimed in negligence over malfunctioning Utrilog ultrasound machines used under the Alizonne Therapy sublicences and sought to join Dr Claudia van der Lugt as a defendant for negligent misstatement, alleging she gave technical advice and assumed personal responsibility. The court held the joinder test under CPR 19.2(2)(b) is analogous to the strike-out/summary judgment approach and, on the evidence (notably emails), found the clinics had a real prospect of establishing a special relationship and negligent advice, so joinder was permitted. The court also held the sublicence "entire agreement" clause did not bar third‑party tort claims. No final determination on negligence or liability was made.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
An application to join a new defendant under CPR 19.2(2)(b) should be tested by whether the proposed pleaded case discloses reasonable grounds akin to the strike‑out test, and where evidence is before the court it is legitimate to consider whether the proposed claimant has no real prospect of success (summary‑judgment‑style analysis). Also, an "entire agreement" clause in a contract between parties does not, by itself, preclude third parties from being sued in tort for negligent misstatements made to the contracting parties.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment suggests that when both sides adduce evidence on a joinder application it is appropriate to approach the substantive merits analogously to summary judgment to assess real prospects, and that reliance on alleged negligent statements may be treated as implied when loss is pleaded as caused by those statements. These comments appear as guidance rather than binding holdings.