TRW Pensions Trust Ltd & Anor v Indesit Company Polska SP Z.O.O & Anor

TRW Pensions Trust Ltd & Anor v Indesit Company Polska SP Z.O.O & Anor

The mistake made by RPC was a genuine mistake as to the name of the party intended to be the lessee of the third floor; TP ICAP Group Services Ltd should have been named as Second Claimant. The requirements of CPR 19.5(3)(a) are satisfied, and the court exercises its discretion to permit substitution, as no prejudice is caused to defendants and consent is provided in writing.

Parties
First Claimant: TRW Pensions Trust Limited; Second Claimant (original): TP ICAP plc; Second Claimant (substituted): TP ICAP Group Services Ltd; First Defendant: Indesit Company Polska Sp. Z.o.o; Second Defendant: Whirlpool Company Polska Sp. Z.o.o; Third Defendant: Eichenauer Heizelemente GmbH & So. KG; Fourth Defendant: Askoll TRE S.r.l; Fifth Defendant: Whirlpool Emea Spa
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Substitution of Claimant
Outcome
Application allowed; TP ICAP Group Services Ltd substituted as Second Claimant in place of TP ICAP plc.
Legal Topics
Substitution of Parties, Mistake in Party Description, Limitation Period, Subrogated Claims, Discretion Under CPR 19.5
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Product Liability Substitution of Parties Mistake in Party Description Limitation Period Subrogated Claims Discretion Under CPR 19.5

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

Parties

TRW Pensions Trust Limited

First Claimant

TP ICAP plc

Second Claimant (original)

TP ICAP Group Services Ltd

Second Claimant (substituted)

Indesit Company Polska Sp. Z.o.o

First Defendant

Whirlpool Company Polska Sp. Z.o.o

Second Defendant

Eichenauer Heizelemente GmbH & So. KG

Third Defendant

Askoll TRE S.r.l

Fourth Defendant

Whirlpool Emea Spa

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Substitution of Claimant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether TP ICAP Group Services Ltd can be substituted for TP ICAP plc as Second Claimant after expiry of limitation period
  2. 2 Whether the mistake in party description qualifies under CPR 19.5(3)(a)
  3. 3 Whether CPR 19.5(3)(b) is applicable

Ratio Decidendi

The mistake made by RPC was a genuine mistake as to the name of the party intended to be the lessee of the third floor; TP ICAP Group Services Ltd should have been named as Second Claimant. The requirements of CPR 19.5(3)(a) are satisfied, and the court exercises its discretion to permit substitution, as no prejudice is caused to defendants and consent is provided in writing.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; TP ICAP Group Services Ltd substituted as Second Claimant in place of TP ICAP plc.

Orders

  • TP ICAP Group Services Ltd is substituted as Second Claimant for TP ICAP plc.
  • Parties to agree costs of the application within seven days; failing which, a further remote hearing will be scheduled for costs and consequential applications.