Morgan Est (Scotland) Ltd v Hanson Concrete Products Ltd: CA 17 Feb 2005

The defendant appealed an order adding two new claimants.
Held: Cases decided under the old RSC were not apposite for matters covered by the new Civil Procedure Rules. The court was not bound by the Sardinia Sulcis rules: ‘The Sardinia Sulcis should be allowed to sink back to the ocean bottom. It would muddy the waters.’ If service is dispensed with, no prejudice will have been suffered by the defendant other than that it will not be able to rely upon an unmeritorious limitation defence, and that is no prejudice at all. Jacob LJ spoke of the difference between the 1939 and 1980 Acts: ‘the 1980 Act had the obvious intention of liberalising the position from that under the Limitation Act 1939.’
Jacob, Hooper LJJ
[2005] EWCA Civ 134, Times 28-Feb-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 2557
Civil Procedure Rules, Limitation Act 1980, Limitation Act 1939
England and Wales
On appeal fromMorgan EST (Scotland) Ltd v Hanson Concrete Products Ltd TCC 22-Jul-2004
. .
CitedThe Sardinia Sulcis CA 1991
The power to change a party after the expiry of a limitation period can be exercised where a party has been wrongly identified, but ‘it was possible to identify the intending claimant or intended defendant by reference to a description which was . .
CitedGregson v Channel Four Television Corporation CA 11-Jul-2000
It was possible to amend pleadings outside of the limitation period, where the alteration to identify the correct party was genuine and the mistake had not mislead any party. In this case there was no reasonable doubt about who had been intended to . .

Cited by:
Appealed toMorgan EST (Scotland) Ltd v Hanson Concrete Products Ltd TCC 22-Jul-2004
. .
CitedAsia Pacific (Hk) Ltd. and others v Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd (Hanjin Pennsylvania) ComC 7-Nov-2005
Various cargo owners sought damages against the owners of the ship which had suffered an explosion with the loss of the cargo. The defendants asserted limitation. Some claimants had agreed an extension of time. Proceedings were then issued but . .
CitedAdelson and Another v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 9-Jul-2007
The claimant sought to add the name of a further claimant. The defendant objected, saying that it was after the expiry of the limitation period.
Held: The claimant was seeking to use the rules for substitution of parties to add a party. In . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 January 2021; Ref: scu.222729