header-logo header-logo

Practice

07 December 2012
Issue: 7541 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Nemeti and others v Sabre Insurance Company Ltd [2012] EWHC 3355 (QB), [2012] All ER (D) 304 (Nov)

It was established law that the addition or substitution of parties had to be necessary to cure some defect and to permit the maintenance of the existing action. In many instances, when well into the life of an action, a claimant might wish to pursue another party as ultimate recovery post judgment might be more likely than with an existing defendant. However, that could not, of itself, merit substitution outside any relevant limitation period which would otherwise protect the party that was desired to be added. It would fundamentally attach the ability of any party to rely on a limitation defence. While the powers under s 35 of the Limitation Act 1980 and CPR 19.5 did permit the addition or substitution of a party after the relevant limitation period had expired, they were properly restrictive as to the circumstances when it was permissible. Further, the potential for injustice had to be borne in mind when interpreting s 35 of the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll