Giles v Polarcus DMCC

Giles v Polarcus DMCC

The application to strike out the claim against Polarcus DMCC is dismissed because the claim as pleaded can be amended to properly refer to Polarcus DMCC as operator of the vessel, and there are arguable grounds for a claim in tort and possibly contract. The application to substitute Polarcus Ltd for Polarcus DMCC is dismissed because there is no evidence of a genuine mistake as to nomenclature, and the description in the claim form matches Polarcus DMCC, not Polarcus Ltd. The requirements for substitution under CPR 17.4 or 19.5 are not met.

Parties
Claimant: Leah Giles; Defendant: Polarcus DMCC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Admiralty / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out/summary Judgment and Application to Substitute Defendant
Outcome
Application to strike out dismissed; application to substitute defendant dismissed; permission to apply to amend particulars of claim granted.
Legal Topics
Striking Out Claims, Summary Judgment, Substitution of Parties, Limitation Period, Misnomer Vs Misidentification
Civil Procedure Admiralty Law Personal Injury Striking Out Claims Summary Judgment Substitution of Parties Limitation Period Misnomer Vs Misidentification

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leah Giles

Claimant

Polarcus DMCC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Admiralty / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out/summary Judgment and Application to Substitute Defendant

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The application to strike out the claim against Polarcus DMCC is dismissed because the claim as pleaded can be amended to properly refer to Polarcus DMCC as operator of the vessel, and there are arguable grounds for a claim in tort and possibly contract. The application to substitute Polarcus Ltd for Polarcus DMCC is dismissed because there is no evidence of a genuine mistake as to nomenclature, and the description in the claim form matches Polarcus DMCC, not Polarcus Ltd. The requirements for substitution under CPR 17.4 or 19.5 are not met.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out dismissed; application to substitute defendant dismissed; permission to apply to amend particulars of claim granted.

Orders

  • Polarcus DMCC's application to strike out or for summary judgment is dismissed.
  • Claimant's application to substitute Polarcus Ltd as defendant is dismissed.