header-logo header-logo

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

Practice

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

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Heavyweight patent litigator will bolster Carpmaels Ransford’s rapidly growing Litigation team as firm marks its 250th anniversary

NEWS
Lawyers have welcomed plans to create specialist rape and serious sex offences courtrooms at every Crown Court
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
back-to-top-scroll