Burns v Burns & Anor [2003] NIQB 44 (20 June 2003)

Burns v Burns & Anor [2003] NIQB 44 (20 June 2003)

The third party insurer does not have a direct interest in the issues of negligence or breach of statutory duty between the plaintiff and defendant, but only a contingent financial interest arising from a possible indemnity. The presence of the insurer is not necessary for the effectual and complete determination of the matters in dispute. Therefore, the insurer should not be joined as an additional defendant under Order 15 Rule 6.

Citation
[2003] NIQB 44
Parties
Plaintiff: Michael Burns; Defendant: Patrick Burns; Third Party: Royal Sun Alliance Insurance PLC
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
20 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Master's Refusal to Join Third Party as Additional Defendant
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Joinder of Parties, Third Party Proceedings, Limitation of Actions, Indemnity, Friendly Actions
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Personal Injury Joinder of Parties Third Party Proceedings Limitation of Actions Indemnity Friendly Actions

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Burns

Plaintiff

Patrick Burns

Defendant

Royal Sun Alliance Insurance PLC

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Master's Refusal to Join Third Party as Additional Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the third party insurer should be joined as an additional defendant under Order 15 Rule 6 of the Rules of the Supreme Court
  2. 2 Whether the insurer has a sufficient direct interest in the subject matter of the action to justify joinder
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings between plaintiff and defendant are 'friendly' and inadequately defended

Ratio Decidendi

The third party insurer does not have a direct interest in the issues of negligence or breach of statutory duty between the plaintiff and defendant, but only a contingent financial interest arising from a possible indemnity. The presence of the insurer is not necessary for the effectual and complete determination of the matters in dispute. Therefore, the insurer should not be joined as an additional defendant under Order 15 Rule 6.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of the Master refusing joinder affirmed with costs above and below.
  • Directions given for preliminary trial of the indemnity issue, followed by the limitation issue.