Rio Guadalete SA Of Panama v Hopwood & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 445 (27 March 2001)

Rio Guadalete SA Of Panama v Hopwood & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 445 (27 March 2001)

The appeal was dismissed because the claimant's delay was unexplained and substantial, there was a real risk that a fair trial was no longer possible due to deterioration of factual evidence, and the judge's exercise of discretion to strike out the claim was not wrong in principle or disproportionate.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 445
Parties
Claimant/appellant: RIO GUADALETE SA OF PANAMA; Defendant/respondent: KENNETH HOPWOOD; Defendant/respondent: THE INDEMNITY MARINE ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED; Defendant/respondent: ZURICH REINSURANCE (LONDON) LIMITED; Defendant/respondent: COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE COMPANY PLC; Defendant/respondent: THE OCEAN MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED; Defendant/respondent: THE NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED; Defendant/respondent: MOORGATE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED; Defendant/respondent: HIBERNIAN INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED; Defendant/respondent: THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED; Defendant/respondent: ODYSSEY RE(LONDON) LIMITED; Defendant/respondent: DAI-TOKYO INSURANCE COMPANY (UK) LIMITED; Defendant/respondent: UAP INCENDIE-ACCIDENTS; Defendant/respondent: LA REUNION FRANCAISE SOCIETE ANONYME D'ASSURANCES ET DE REASSURANCES; Defendant/respondent: THE LONDON ASSURANCE; Defendant/respondent: SUN INSURANCE OFFICE LIMITED; Defendant/respondent: GENERAL ACCIDENT FIRE & LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION PLC; Defendant/respondent: WURTTEMBERGISCHE FEUERVERSICHERUNG AG; Defendant/respondent: GERLING-KONZERN ALLGEMEINE VERSICHERUNG-AG; Defendant/respondent: ROYAL INSURANCE (UK) LIMITED
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Judgment Striking Out Claim Under CPR 3.4
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Strike Out for Procedural Default, Delay in Litigation, Security for Costs, Fair Trial, Proportionality of Sanctions
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Maritime Law Strike Out for Procedural Default Delay in Litigation Security for Costs Fair Trial Proportionality of Sanctions

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RIO GUADALETE SA OF PANAMA

Claimant/appellant

KENNETH HOPWOOD

Defendant/respondent

THE INDEMNITY MARINE ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Defendant/respondent

ZURICH REINSURANCE (LONDON) LIMITED

Defendant/respondent

COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE COMPANY PLC

Defendant/respondent

THE OCEAN MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Defendant/respondent

THE NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Defendant/respondent

MOORGATE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Defendant/respondent

HIBERNIAN INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Defendant/respondent

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Defendant/respondent

ODYSSEY RE(LONDON) LIMITED

Defendant/respondent

DAI-TOKYO INSURANCE COMPANY (UK) LIMITED

Defendant/respondent

UAP INCENDIE-ACCIDENTS

Defendant/respondent

LA REUNION FRANCAISE SOCIETE ANONYME D'ASSURANCES ET DE REASSURANCES

Defendant/respondent

THE LONDON ASSURANCE

Defendant/respondent

SUN INSURANCE OFFICE LIMITED

Defendant/respondent

GENERAL ACCIDENT FIRE & LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION PLC

Defendant/respondent

WURTTEMBERGISCHE FEUERVERSICHERUNG AG

Defendant/respondent

GERLING-KONZERN ALLGEMEINE VERSICHERUNG-AG

Defendant/respondent

ROYAL INSURANCE (UK) LIMITED

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Judgment Striking Out Claim Under CPR 3.4

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether striking out the claim for procedural default was just and proportionate
  2. 2 Whether delay prevented a fair trial
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's impecuniosity justified the delay

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the claimant's delay was unexplained and substantial, there was a real risk that a fair trial was no longer possible due to deterioration of factual evidence, and the judge's exercise of discretion to strike out the claim was not wrong in principle or disproportionate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs, here and below
  • Permission to appeal to the House of Lords refused