‘A judge was wrong to stop a case against a law firm that had incorporated since potentially negligent advice was given when the wrong entity was named in the claim, the High Court has ruled.’
Legal Futures, 5th April 2019
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed Pimlico Plumbers Ltd’s appeal and upheld the Employment Tribunal’s ruling that the Respondent – Mr Smith – a plumbing and heating engineer had been:
(a) a “worker” within the meaning of section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996;
(b) a “worker” within the meaning of regulation 2(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/1833)
(c) in Pimlico’s “employment” within the meaning of section 83(2)(a) of the Equality Act.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th June 2018
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A recent decision by Master Matthews in Menalou v Bank of Cyprus UK Limited [2016] EWHC 2656 (Ch), in a characteristically detailed and interesting judgment, reaffirms the author’s long-held view that the appropriate procedure for the a claimant, claiming to be subrogated to the unpaid vendor’s lien, to use is to apply for an order for sale and vesting/appointment orders under s90 Law of Property Act 1925. Section 90 reads as follows:
“90.— Realisation of equitable charges by the court.
(1) Where an order for sale is made by the court in reference to an equitable mortgage on land (not secured by a legal term of years absolute or by a charge by way of legal mortgage) the court may, in favour of a purchaser, make a vesting order conveying the land or may appoint a person to convey the land or create and vest in the mortgagee a legal term of years absolute to enable him to carry out the sale, as the case may require, in like manner as if the mortgage had been created by deed by way of legal mortgage pursuant to this Act, but without prejudice to any incumbrance having priority to the equitable mortgage unless the incumbrancer consents to the sale…”’
Hardwicke Chambers, 5th January 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has dismissed a challenge to Ealing Council’s approval of plans to redevelop the Oaks Shopping Centre in west London, after disagreeing with claims that the substitution of a councillor on the Council’s planning committee was unlawful.’
OUT-LAW.com, 19th November 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Fashions are a feature of so much in life, and employment law is no exception, where for the moment at least: Status is in vogue. In recent years the appellate courts have considered a range of relationships, and been asked to answer the question: what is the legal characterisation of the claimant’s relationship with the respondent? The question is put more specifically in each case; was the claimant an employee, a worker, an office holder, or truly self-employed as an independent provider of services? But this is merely to particularise the general question: what is the claimant’s status?’
Littleton Chambers, 31st October 2014
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
Regina v White (Anthony) [2014] EWCA Crim 714; [2014] WLR (D) 175
‘If a defendant, wrongly charged with offences contrary to section 16(1) of the Theft Act 1968, rather than under section 15A of the 1968 Act, was prepared to admit his dishonest transactions in relation to mortgage advances, it would be wrong to permit him to evade the consequences of his behaviour by refusing to substitute conviction of the correct offence simply in order to punish the prosecution for its egregious failures in relation to charging.’
WLR Daily, 15th April 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Menelaou v Bank of Cyprus UK Ltd: [2013] EWCA Civ 1960; [2013] WLR (D) 266
“A bank which had released its charges over property in exchange for a new charge over property purchased from the proceeds of sale of the other property was entitled by subrogation to an unpaid vendor’s lien on the new property.”
WLR Daily, 2nd July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
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 [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
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 [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.
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 [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
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.
Dunwoody Sports Marketing v. Prescott [2007] EWCA Civ 461
“The power to order substitution of a new party for an existing party to an action under CPR r 19.2 continued after judgment had been given.”
WLR Daily, 17th May 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.
© Inner Temple Library 2024