Lukins & Anor v Quality Part X Ltd & Anor

The High Court’s decision in Lukins & Anor v Quality Part X Ltd & Anor [2026] EWHC 301 (KB) (18 February 2026) is an important one for public liability property damage insurers, highlighting the potential to defend a case where the claim is brought out of time due to a procedural error or oversight on the part of the claimant.

Insurers must be alive to the limitation periods that apply to different types of property damage claim and the procedural rules that apply in different courts (eg the Business and Property Courts, where e-filing is mandatory for legally represented clients).

They should also be open to “bold” options such as strike-out and/or summary judgment applications, which can be an effective (and cost-effective) means of bringing proceedings to an end.

Above all, it’s crucial to promptly seek legal advice on receipt of court proceedings. To find out more and speak with a specialist in limitation, civil procedure, or any property damage related issues, contact Steven Smith, Partner (steven.smith@h-f.co.uk).

Background:

The claimants claimed in tort (negligence/nuisance) for property damage following a fire at commercial premises in Wembley. The defendants were, respectively, the occupier of a neighbouring unit (where the fire allegedly started), and the landlord.

The fire happened on 6 April 2018. On 25 March 2024, shortly before expiry of limitation, the claimants’ solicitors sent a claim form by special delivery to the King’s Bench Division, requesting that proceedings be issued.

By letter of 28 March 2024, the court office returned the claim form to the claimants’ solicitors by post, stating that they weren’t able to issue the claim because, since 1 July 2019, it had been mandatory for legally-represented parties in the King’s Bench Division to file documents electronically (under Practice Direction 51O, now replaced by Practice Direction 5C). For some reason, the letter wasn’t received by the claimants’ solicitors until 9 April 2024. By that time, of course, limitation had expired. The claimants’ solicitors issued proceedings via the court’s “CE-File” service that day.

The second defendant (landlord) applied first for summary judgment; the first defendant did later.

On hearing the defendants’ applications, the court reviewed the authorities on when a claim is “brought” for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980, and confirmed that the test was whether the claimants had done all that could reasonably be expected of them to ensure that proceedings were issued in time. What is “reasonable” will depend on factors such as:

  • The requirements of any rules or practice directions;
  • Whether the claimant is legally represented; and
  • The content and timing of any communications with the court.

Here, it could not be said that the claimants had done all that was reasonably expected of them: Practice Direction 51O required legally-represented parties to issue claims electronically, and that mandate had been in place for several years; the claimants’ solicitors should have known that. The court also rejected the claimants’ argument that the defect was capable of being corrected as an error of procedure.

This decision illustrates the importance of looking closely at any issued proceedings, and acting decisively when procedural irregularities are identified. There may sometimes be a “quick win” available (as there was for the insurers involved here). HF has an established track record of successful outcomes in similar situations: HF Secures High Court Victory in £2m Property Damage Claim – HF).