Payabi and Another v Armstel Shipping Corporation and Another: QBD 1 Apr 1992

A party had been wrongly added in breach of limitation under Hague Convention. There should have been no relation back. Hobhouse J considered the effect of the 1980 Act: ‘But it is clear that Ord. 20, r. 5 must now be read with the [1980] Act and is implicitly (but inelegantly) giving effect to the first alternative, (a), in section 35(6). The result is that the rule relevant to the present case, Ord 20. r. 5, must be construed as being made under the general power to regulate procedure and under the more specific power given for the purposes of that Act by section 35 of the Act of 1980.’


Hobhouse J


Gazette 01-Apr-1992, [1992] 1 QB 907


Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Comercial Matters 1965 Cmd 3986, Limitation Act 1980 35(6)


CitedMitchell v Harris Engineering Co Ltd CA 1967
The plaintiff was seeking to claim against his employers for personal injuries. There was correspondence with them before action that did not lead to a settlement. When the writ was issued a junior clerk made a mistake and issued it in the very . .

Cited by:

CitedHamilton and others v Allied Domecq Plc (Scotland) HL 11-Jul-2007
The pursuers had been shareholders in a company which sold spring water. The defenders took shares in the company in return for promises as to the promotion and distribution of the bottled water. The pursuers said that they had failed to promote it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Limitation

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84615