Giles v Polarcus DMCC [2016] EWHC 1843 (Admlty) (20 July 2016)

Giles v Polarcus DMCC [2016] EWHC 1843 (Admlty) (20 July 2016)

The application to strike out by Polarcus DMCC is dismissed because the claim against the operator of the vessel is arguable in tort and breach of duty, and procedural irregularities can be corrected by amendment. The application to substitute Polarcus Ltd for Polarcus DMCC is dismissed because there is insufficient...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1843 (Admlty)
Parties
Defendant: Polarcus DMCC; Proposed Defendant: Polarcus Ltd; Owner of Vessel: Polarcus Adira AS; Claimant: Claimant
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim / Application to Strike Out and Application to Substitute Defendant
Outcome
Application to strike out by Polarcus DMCC dismissed; Application to substitute Polarcus Ltd dismissed; Claimant permitted to apply to amend Particulars of Claim against Polarcus DMCC.
Legal Topics
Striking Out, Summary Judgment, Substitution of Parties, Limitation Periods, Misnomer Vs Misidentification, Corporate Group Structure
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Employment Law Striking Out Summary Judgment Substitution of Parties Limitation Periods Misnomer Vs Misidentification +1 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 6 Authorities cited 37 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Polarcus DMCC

Defendant

Polarcus Ltd

Proposed Defendant

Polarcus Adira AS

Owner of Vessel

Claimant

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim / Application to Strike Out and Application to Substitute Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claim against Polarcus DMCC should be struck out or summary judgment granted
  2. 2 Whether Claimant should be permitted to substitute Polarcus Ltd for Polarcus DMCC after expiry of limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

The application to strike out by Polarcus DMCC is dismissed because the claim against the operator of the vessel is arguable in tort and breach of duty, and procedural irregularities can be corrected by amendment. The application to substitute Polarcus Ltd for Polarcus DMCC is dismissed because there is insufficient evidence of a genuine mistake as to nomenclature, and the description in the claim form matches the named defendant, failing the test for substitution under CPR 17.4 and 19.5.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out by Polarcus DMCC dismissed; Application to substitute Polarcus Ltd dismissed; Claimant permitted to apply to amend Particulars of Claim against Polarcus DMCC.

Orders

  • Claimant given opportunity to amend Particulars of Claim with respect to case against Polarcus DMCC.
  • Further directions to be given upon application to amend.