A writ was issued against defendants ‘O’ who had been owners of the Jay Bola, just prior to the expiry of the one year time bar under the Hague Rules. The judge laid emphasis on the fact that Article 6 III r.6 discharged from all liability unless suit was brought within a year. ‘O’ had in fact sold the ship to ‘AS’, and after the expiry of the time bar, the plaintiffs sought leave to correct the name under Ord.20 r.5(3).
Held: Ord.20 r.5 had been in similar terms since 1964, and there were decisions showing that amendments granted under the rule did relate back, but those cases were concerned with ‘procedural time bars’ under the Limitation Acts. Since the passing of the Limitation Act 1980, in particular by section 35, some power to relate back was derived from that section, but only in relation to time limits imposed by the Limitation Acts. The only relation back in respect of an amendment of proceedings to add another party after the limitation proceedings, that was available was that allowed by the rules made to give effect to section 35 of the 1980 Act.
Judges:
Hobhouse J
Citations:
[1992] 1 QB 907
Statutes:
Cited by:
Cited – Parsons and Another v George and Another CA 13-Jul-2004
The claimant sought to begin proceedings to renew his business tenancy, but the proceedings were issued in the wrong name. He sought to amend the proceedings to substitute the correct defendant, but that application was out of time.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Limitation, Litigation Practice
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.200227
