Weston v Gribben & Anor

Weston v Gribben & Anor

The substitution of Grass Inversiones SL as claimant was not permitted under CPR 19.5(3)(a) because the amendment would require significant changes to the formulation of the claim, including the basis for the duty of care and the party suffering loss. There was no credible evidence of a relevant mistake as to the identity of the claimant. The claim in respect of the Dominion Beach property could not be maintained by Mr Weston as beneficial owner, as any duty was owed to the legal owner, Grass.

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 / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) on Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Mr Weston's appeal dismissed; FCO's cross-appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation of Actions, Misfeasance in Public Office, Negligence, Joinder of Parties
Civil Procedure Tort Law Amendment of Pleadings Limitation of Actions Misfeasance in Public Office Negligence Joinder of 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 3 Authorities cited 9 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 / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) on Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Grass Inversiones SL could be joined as claimant after expiry of limitation period under CPR 19.5(3)
  2. 2 Whether Mr Weston could maintain a claim for loss of Dominion Beach property as beneficial owner
  3. 3 Whether the original claim was brought in mistake as to the proper claimant under CPR 19.5(3)(a)

Ratio Decidendi

The substitution of Grass Inversiones SL as claimant was not permitted under CPR 19.5(3)(a) because the amendment would require significant changes to the formulation of the claim, including the basis for the duty of care and the party suffering loss. There was no credible evidence of a relevant mistake as to the identity of the claimant. The claim in respect of the Dominion Beach property could not be maintained by Mr Weston as beneficial owner, as any duty was owed to the legal owner, Grass.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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