Murfin v Ashbridge: CA 1941

A road accident was caused by the alleged negligence of a driver who was identified but could not be found.
Held: While an insurer may be authorised by the policy to defend an action on behalf of his assured, he was not a party in that capacity and could not take any step in his own name. In the course of considering that point, Goddard LJ suggested that ‘possibly’ service on the driver might have been effected by substituted service on the insurers.

Goddard LJ
[1941] 1 All ER 231
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd SC 20-Feb-2019
The Court was asked in what circumstances is it permissible to sue an unnamed defendant? The respondent was injured when her car collided with another. The care was insured but by a driver giving a false name. The car owner refused to identify him. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.670957