Weston v Gribben & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 1425 (02 November 2006)

Weston v Gribben & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 1425 (02 November 2006)

The substitution or addition of Grass as claimant was not permitted under CPR 19.5(3)(a) or (b) because the necessary amendments would materially alter the formulation of the claim, particularly the basis of duty of care and loss, and there was no relevant mistake as to the identity of the claimant. The claim as...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1425
Parties
Appellant Claimant: Roger James Weston; Defendant: John Gribben; Respondent Defendant: Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)
Outcome
Mr Weston's appeal dismissed; FCO's cross-appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Addition/substitution of Parties, Limitation Periods, Misfeasance in Public Office, Negligence, Beneficial Ownership, Trusts, Notarial Acts, Apostille Authentication
Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Company Law Tort Law Amendment of Pleadings Addition/substitution of Parties Limitation Periods Misfeasance in Public Office +5 more

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roger James Weston

Appellant Claimant

John Gribben

Defendant

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Respondent Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Grass Inversiones SL could be joined as claimant after expiry of limitation period under CPR 19.5(3)(a) or (b)
  2. 2 Whether Mr Weston could claim for loss of Dominion Beach property as beneficial owner
  3. 3 Whether the claim by Grass would constitute a new claim outside limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

The substitution or addition of Grass as claimant was not permitted under CPR 19.5(3)(a) or (b) because the necessary amendments would materially alter the formulation of the claim, particularly the basis of duty of care and loss, and there was no relevant mistake as to the identity of the claimant. The claim as originally pleaded was personal to Mr Weston, not on behalf of Grass. Therefore, Grass could not be joined to assert a claim for the whole loss after expiry of the limitation period.

Court Disposition

Mr Weston's appeal dismissed; FCO's cross-appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted to Mr Weston; extension of time granted to FCO for cross-appeal.
  • Claim in respect of Dominion Beach property struck out; only claim for loss of berth remains.