0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Reliance National Insurance Company v Ropner Insurance Services Ltd

1 February 2001
The issues

Automatic stay – meaning of coming before a Judge

The facts

On 9th March 2000 the Claimant’s solicitors wrote to the Defendant’s solicitors enclosing a draft application and draft consent order, both of which sought CMC. Letter made it clear that the Claimant’s solicitors were seeking to avoid an automatic stay. The Defendants did not agree to the proposed directions.
On 19th April the Claimant’s solicitors faxed to the Court a letter enclosing draft proposed letter to the effect that a stay would be inappropriate (as recommended by a note from the Admiralty and Commercial Court Registry prepared in March 2000 but making it clear that the draft proposed letter was not agreed by the Defendants. The letter asked that the draft be placed before a Judge with the request that either directions be made in the terms proposed or that there should be a CMC. The letter came before Morrison LJ who endorsed the facts with the words automatic stay to apply the Claimants have not taken sufficient steps to progress a relatively stale claim.

The decision

The mere writing of a letter to the Court even it was brought to the Judge’s attention and even if he responded to it did not mean that proceedings had come before the Court on paper. Such a letter was not a notice of application.

Appeal dismissed.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.

View

Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.

View

Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.

View

Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up