Archive for the 'substitution' Category

Lockheed Martin Corpn v Willis Group Ltd – WLR Daily

Lockheed Martin Corpn v Willis Group Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 927; [2010] WLR (D) 225

“Where a party was to be substituted on the grounds of mistake under CPR r 19.5 there was no further formal jurisdictional requirement that the mistake was not misleading to the other party or did not cause reasonable doubt as to the identity of the party intended to be sued.”

WLR Daily, 5th August 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd – WLR Daily

O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd [2010] UKSC 23; [2010] WLR (D) 137

“In a claim under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 based on the rights conferred under Council Directive 85/374/EEC concerning liability for defective products, which by art 11 required proceedings to be brought against the producer within ten years of the product being put into circulation, domestic law could not allow the producer to be substituted as the defendant outside that period in place of a wholly-owned subsidiary (who was the supplier but had been erroneously thought to be the producer) unless the parent company had actually determined when the supplier put the product in circulation.”

WLR Daily, 27th May 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd – Times Law Reports

O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd

Court of Appeal

“Where a claimant had made a mistake about the name but not the identity of the defendant, that name could be substituted after the expiry of the limitation period, where substitution was necessary required in order to determine the original action.”

The Times, 19th November 2007

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd – WLR Daily

O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 939

“A party could be substituted under s 35 of the Limitation Act 1980 where the ten-year limitation period for making a claim for damage caused by a defective product had expired, even where the correct party was known to the claimant before the limitation period expired, if the claimant had made a mistake about the name of the defendant and substitution was necessary for the purpose of determining the original action.”

WLR Daily, 10th October 2007

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Adelson and Another v. Associated Newspapers Ltd. – Times Law Reports

Addition of parties is not same as substitution

Adelson and Another v. Associated Newspapers Ltd.

Court of Appeal

“An order would be made substituting a party to an action after the expiry of the limitation period on the ground that there had been a mistake in relation to the name of a party only if the person who had made the mistake was the person responsible for the issue of the claim form and, had the mistake not been made, the new party would have been named in the pleading.”

The Times, 18th July 2007

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Adelson and another v Associated Newspapers Ltd – WLR Daily

Adelson and another v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2007] EWCA (Civ) 701 

A court would only grant an order substituting a party to an action after the expiry of the limitation period, pursuant to CPR r 19.5, on the ground that there had been a mistake in relation to the name of a party, if it was shown that the person who had made the mistake was the person responsible for the issue of the claim form and that, had the mistake not been made, the new party would have been named in the pleading.”

WLR Daily, 11th July 2007

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Dunwoody Sports Marketing v. Prescott – Times Law Reports

Substitution of party

Dunwoody Sports Marketing v. Prescott

Court of Appeal

“The court had power to order substitution of a new party for an existing party or joinder of a party to an action after judgment had been given.”

The Times, 25th May 2007

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.


March 2017
M T W T F S S
« May    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Categories