Marine Harvest (Scotland) Ltd v. Nemi Forsikring ASA [2011] ScotCS CSOH_91 (31 May 2011)

Marine Harvest (Scotland) Ltd v. Nemi Forsikring ASA [2011] ScotCS CSOH_91 (31 May 2011)

The motion to amend was refused because it was made too late in the proceedings, would disrupt the efficient conduct of litigation, and was of doubtful relevancy. NEMI was not justified in relying solely on Marine Harvest's initial claim, as the insurer was aware of the possibility of alternative claims and had access to the same evidence. The alleged prejudice was speculative and not sufficient to bar Marine Harvest's claim.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSOH_91
Parties
Pursuer: Marine Harvest (Scotland) Limited; Defender: Nemi Forsikring ASA
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
31 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil (insurance Dispute) / Interlocutory Motion to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Motion to amend refused; expenses awarded to Marine Harvest (pursuer).
Legal Topics
Personal Bar (estoppel), Amendment of Pleadings, Interests of Justice, Causation in Insurance Claims
Insurance Law Civil Procedure Personal Bar (estoppel) Amendment of Pleadings Interests of Justice Causation in Insurance Claims

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

Parties

Marine Harvest (Scotland) Limited

Pursuer

Nemi Forsikring ASA

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (insurance Dispute) / Interlocutory Motion to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender (NEMI) should be allowed to amend its pleadings to introduce a plea of personal bar against the pursuer (Marine Harvest) for changing the basis of its insurance claim after the opportunity for further evidence had been lost.

Ratio Decidendi

The motion to amend was refused because it was made too late in the proceedings, would disrupt the efficient conduct of litigation, and was of doubtful relevancy. NEMI was not justified in relying solely on Marine Harvest's initial claim, as the insurer was aware of the possibility of alternative claims and had access to the same evidence. The alleged prejudice was speculative and not sufficient to bar Marine Harvest's claim.

Court Disposition

Motion to amend refused; expenses awarded to Marine Harvest (pursuer).

Orders

  • Refusal to receive the minute of amendment tendered by NEMI.
  • Award of expenses occasioned by the motion to Marine Harvest.