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 1980 Act and CPR 19.5.

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll