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?

Morgan Est (Scotland) Ltd v Hanson Concrete Products Ltd, Court of Appeal, 17 February 2005

28 February 2005
The issues

Amendment – Substitution Of Parties – Limitation – Tests To Be Applied

The facts

The Claimant, Morgan Est (Scotland) Ltd brought proceedings in respect of damages or defective pipe sections bought from the Defendants. The proceedings were brought at the very end of limitation. The Defendants by their defence that original contractor was another company and that they had never been in a contractual relationship such that they should be sued. The Claimant therefore sought permission to amend proceedings so that two new Claimants, Miller Civil Engineering Limited and Morgan Est Plc, be added to the sole original Claimant. That application was made after the end of the limitation period. The Judge permitted the amendment. The Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The decision

The previous lead authority in respect of pre CPR cases and the then applicable Order 20 Rule 5 was the test in the Sardinia Sulcis case. That test had been summed up as “the right description/wrong name test”. After the introduction of the CPR there had been a number of further cases most notably Gregson v Channel Four Television. In that case the Court of Appeal pointed out that the CPR was a new procedural code and that there was no basis for supposing that the new rules were intended to replicate the previous provisions.

The Sardinia Sulcis cases had re-appeared in two subsequent decisions. However, the Court had come to the clear conclusion that the Sardinia Sulcis test did not set the limits of Rule 19.5. It was devised for a wholly different rule.

The Court was not bound by the trinity of post CPR cases Horne-Roberts, Parsons and Kesslar in which these had been re-applied. It was not bound because each of those cases had made the fundamentally wrong assumption that the Sardinia Sulcis test was framed to apply a relevant rule and that no member of any of the Courts held explicitly that the limits of the rule were embodied by the test. Moreover the Sardinia Sulcis test did not take into account the overriding objective. The right approach therefore was to apply the words of Rule 19.5 without regard to the Sardinia Sulcis but with regard to the overriding objective. The Sardinia Sulcis should be allowed to sink back to the ocean bottom. The same applied to the application of Rule 17.4.

Thus in this case one had to go through a series of steps and ask the following questions:-

1. Had the limitation period expired (19.5(1))? – Yes.

2. Was the addition of the other parties necessary (19.5(2) (a))? – That depended on whether the Court was satisfied that the new party was to be substituted for a party named in the Claim Form in mistake for the new party.

3. Was the company named in mistake for either of the other companies? There was no reason to construe “in mistake” restrictively. On the contrary the source of the rule had been a limitation Act 1980 which had the intention of liberalising the position from its predecessor.

Moreover the overriding objection of doing justice was likely to be undermined in the Court got finicky about different sorts of mistake. The jurisdiction existed for putting things right. Here there had clearly been a mistake in the naming and the first of the two companies referred to in the amendment should be allowed to substitute the original Claimant. As to the second company which had the current beneficial ownership of the right to sue, it could and ought to be joined pursuant to the provision of 19.5(3) (c).

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.


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.


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.


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.


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