Rosgosstrakh Ltd v Yapi Kredi Finansal Kiralama AO & Anor

Rosgosstrakh Ltd v Yapi Kredi Finansal Kiralama AO & Anor

The mistake in naming the claimant was a genuine mistake as to name, not as to identity or rights, as the intended claimant was always the insurer under the policy. The facts are materially indistinguishable from The Sardinia Sulcis, and the requirements of CPR 19.5 are satisfied. It is just to exercise discretion to allow substitution, as there is no material prejudice to the defendant and the delay was not deliberate.

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 Insurance Claim / Application for Substitution of Claimant After Expiry of Limitation Period
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation of Actions, Substitution of Parties, Corporate Restructuring, Marine Insurance
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Amendment of Pleadings Limitation of Actions Substitution of Parties Corporate Restructuring 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 2 Authorities cited 13 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 Insurance Claim / Application for Substitution of Claimant After Expiry of Limitation Period

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should permit substitution of the correct claimant after expiry of the limitation period under CPR 19.5
  2. 2 Whether the mistake in the claimant's name was a mistake as to name or as to identity/rights
  3. 3 Whether the exercise of discretion to allow substitution is just in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The mistake in naming the claimant was a genuine mistake as to name, not as to identity or rights, as the intended claimant was always the insurer under the policy. The facts are materially indistinguishable from The Sardinia Sulcis, and the requirements of CPR 19.5 are satisfied. It is just to exercise discretion to allow substitution, as there is no material prejudice to the defendant and the delay was not deliberate.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Permission granted to substitute Rosgosstrakh Insurance Company (Public Joint Stock Company) for Rosgosstrakh Limited as claimant under CPR 19.5