The barge had become holed when run aground and then repaired. The repair was faulty, and it sank. The insurers rejected the claim saying that the owners had failed to disclose a report showing areas of thinning of the hull. The underwriters sought to be joined as defendants after judgment.
Held: It was argued that party could be added after judgment: ‘the argument runs following the judgment there is, by definition, no ‘matter in dispute’ in the proceedings.
I unhesitatingly reject this submission. Any proper analysis of the rule must be on the assumption that the existing defendants and/or the intended defendants have a defence that has a real prospect of success. If there is no such prospect, any joinder would be a barren exercise. If there is an arguable defence, then it is a bootstraps argument to assert that the default judgment can be relied upon to assert that the prosecution of such a defence is barred. ‘
Citations:
[2004] EWHC 1804 (Admlty)
Links:
Statutes:
Civil Procedure Rules 19(2)(2), Marine Insurance Act 1906 39(5)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Gurtner v Circuit CA 1968
The Court described the gap in provision for the recovery of damages for injury where the driver of a vehicle was uninsured: ‘if (a) the defendant was not insured at the time of the accident or (b) his policy of insurance was avoided in the . .
Cited – Rees and Another v Mabco (102) Ltd CA 11-Dec-1998
Insurers declined to represent an insured facing a claim for damages for secondary liability for asbestos injury. The insured losing by default, the insurers then sought to be joined to defend the action, but still showed no good defence and were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Transport, Litigation Practice
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.221034
