Highways England Company Limited v BG Rodwell Ltd & Ors [2017] EWHC 118 (QB) (27 January 2017)

Highways England Company Limited v BG Rodwell Ltd & Ors [2017] EWHC 118 (QB) (27 January 2017)

The claimant had standing to sue as title to the bridge and the cause of action were transferred to it by statutory scheme; the existing pleading was adequate, and any amendment did not introduce a new cause of action. The applications to strike out or for summary judgment were dismissed, and the claimant was granted relief from sanctions and permission to amend.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 118
Parties
Claimant: Highways England Company Limited; First Defendant: B. G. Rodwell Limited; Second Defendant: Robert Cheadle; Third Defendant: Allianz Insurance PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil (negligence, Property Damage) / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out, Summary Judgment, Relief From Sanctions, Amendment)
Outcome
Defendants' application dismissed; claimant's applications allowed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Standing to Sue, Amendment of Pleadings, Relief From Sanctions, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications, Transfer of Cause of Action
Tort Law Civil Procedure Insurance Law Negligence Vicarious Liability Standing to Sue Amendment of Pleadings Relief From Sanctions +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Highways England Company Limited

Claimant

B. G. Rodwell Limited

First Defendant

Robert Cheadle

Second Defendant

Allianz Insurance PLC

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (negligence, Property Damage) / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out, Summary Judgment, Relief From Sanctions, Amendment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant had title to sue for damage caused before its existence
  2. 2 Whether the claim should be struck out or summary judgment granted for lack of standing
  3. 3 Whether amendment to pleadings should be allowed after limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant had standing to sue as title to the bridge and the cause of action were transferred to it by statutory scheme; the existing pleading was adequate, and any amendment did not introduce a new cause of action. The applications to strike out or for summary judgment were dismissed, and the claimant was granted relief from sanctions and permission to amend.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application dismissed; claimant's applications allowed.

Orders

  • Defendants' application to strike out or for summary judgment dismissed.
  • Claimant granted relief from sanctions for late costs budget, to bear own costs of application.