Morgan EST (Scotland) Ltd v Hanson Concrete Products Ltd

Morgan EST (Scotland) Ltd v Hanson Concrete Products Ltd

The right approach is to apply the words of CPR 19.5 without regard to the Sardinia Sulcis test but with regard to the overriding objective. There was a clear mistake in naming B as claimant; substitution of A (the original contracting party) and joinder of C (the beneficial owner of the cause of action) are necessary and just. There is no prejudice to the defendants, and the amendment should be allowed.

Parties
Original Claimant (b), Appellant: Morgan Est (Scotland) Ltd; Defendant, Respondent: Hanson Concrete Products Ltd; Proposed Claimant (to Be Joined): Miller Civil Engineering Ltd (Company A); Proposed Claimant (to Be Joined): Morgan Est plc (Company C)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Technology and Construction Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (subject to B being removed as a party); amendment to substitute A and join C as claimants allowed.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Joinder of Parties, Limitation of Actions
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Joinder of Parties Limitation of Actions

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Morgan Est (Scotland) Ltd

Original Claimant (b), Appellant

Hanson Concrete Products Ltd

Defendant, Respondent

Miller Civil Engineering Ltd (Company A)

Proposed Claimant (to Be Joined)

Morgan Est plc (Company C)

Proposed Claimant (to Be Joined)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Technology and Construction Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had power to permit the joinder of new claimants after expiry of the limitation period under CPR 19.5 and Limitation Act 1980 s.35
  2. 2 Whether the Sardinia Sulcis test applies to CPR 19.5
  3. 3 Whether the mistake in naming the claimant justified substitution or addition of parties

Ratio Decidendi

The right approach is to apply the words of CPR 19.5 without regard to the Sardinia Sulcis test but with regard to the overriding objective. There was a clear mistake in naming B as claimant; substitution of A (the original contracting party) and joinder of C (the beneficial owner of the cause of action) are necessary and just. There is no prejudice to the defendants, and the amendment should be allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (subject to B being removed as a party); amendment to substitute A and join C as claimants allowed.

Orders

  • Morgan Est (Scotland) Ltd (B) to be removed as a party.
  • Miller Civil Engineering Ltd (A) to be substituted as claimant.