Rosgosstrakh Ltd v Yapi Kredi Finansal Kiralama AO & Anor [2017] EWHC 3377 (Comm) (20 December 2017)

Rosgosstrakh Ltd v Yapi Kredi Finansal Kiralama AO & Anor [2017] EWHC 3377 (Comm) (20 December 2017)

The mistake in naming the claimant was factual, arising from ignorance of the corporate reorganisation and succession, not a deliberate choice or error of law as to rights. The intended claimant was the insurer under the policy as at the date of the claim form, and the description was clear and specific. The case falls within the Sardinia Sulcis test, and substitution is permitted under CPR 19.5.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 3377 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Rosgosstrakh Limited; First Defendant: Yapi Kredi Finansal Kiralama A. O.; Second Defendant: Mehtap Denizcilik San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Application for Permission to Amend Claim Form and Particulars of Claim After Expiry of Limitation Period
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Mistake as to Party Name, Corporate Succession, Limitation Periods, Marine Insurance
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Corporate Law Amendment of Pleadings Mistake as to Party Name Corporate Succession Limitation Periods Marine Insurance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rosgosstrakh Limited

Claimant

Yapi Kredi Finansal Kiralama A. O.

First Defendant

Mehtap Denizcilik San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Application for Permission to Amend Claim Form and Particulars of Claim After Expiry of Limitation Period

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to substitute the correct claimant after expiry of the limitation period
  2. 2 Whether the mistake was as to the name or identity of the party under CPR 19.5
  3. 3 Whether the facts satisfy the Sardinia Sulcis test for substitution

Ratio Decidendi

The mistake in naming the claimant was factual, arising from ignorance of the corporate reorganisation and succession, not a deliberate choice or error of law as to rights. The intended claimant was the insurer under the policy as at the date of the claim form, and the description was clear and specific. The case falls within the Sardinia Sulcis test, and substitution is permitted under CPR 19.5.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Permission to amend the claim form and Particulars of Claim to substitute Rosgosstrakh Insurance Company (Public Joint Stock Company) as claimant
  • Amendment relates back to the date of commencement of proceedings