Martin v Kaisary & Anor

Martin v Kaisary & Anor

The addition of the Royal Free Hospital Trust as a defendant was not necessary for the claim against Mr Kaisary to be properly carried on. The court held that the evidence required to determine Mr Kaisary's liability could be obtained without adding the Trust as a party, and the claimant could call relevant witnesses. Therefore, the requirements of CPR 19.5(3)(b) were not met.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Peter Francis Martin; First Defendant/respondent: Amir Kaisary; Second Defendant/respondent: The Royal Free Hospital Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Joinder of Parties, Limitation Periods, Civil Procedure Rules (cpr) 19.5, Discretion to Add Parties
Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Joinder of Parties Limitation Periods Civil Procedure Rules (cpr) 19.5 Discretion to Add Parties

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Francis Martin

Claimant/appellant

Amir Kaisary

First Defendant/respondent

The Royal Free Hospital Trust

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should permit the addition of the Royal Free Hospital Trust as a defendant after expiry of the limitation period under CPR 19.5(2) and (3)(b)
  2. 2 Whether the claim against the original defendant could not properly be carried on unless the Trust was added as a party

Ratio Decidendi

The addition of the Royal Free Hospital Trust as a defendant was not necessary for the claim against Mr Kaisary to be properly carried on. The court held that the evidence required to determine Mr Kaisary's liability could be obtained without adding the Trust as a party, and the claimant could call relevant witnesses. Therefore, the requirements of CPR 19.5(3)(b) were not met.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs (payment to be deferred until end of case)