Nemeti v Sabre Insurance Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Floyd: |
| Judgment Date | 04 July 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWCA Civ 995 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 04 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case no: B3/2012/3293 |
[2013] EWCA Civ 995
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURTOF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE COTTER QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Floyd
Case no: B3/2012/3293
Mr Frank Burton QC (instructed by Levenes Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
Ms M Kinsler (instructed by Weightmans LLP) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
This is an application for permission to appeal against an order made on 23 November 2001 by HHJ Cotter sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, by which he allowed an appeal against the order of Master Eastman and refused the claimant's application to substitute the estate of Ioan Bura for the defendant insurer.
The claim arises out of a motor accident which occurred in Romania on 29 December 2007. The particulars of claim claimed damages for injuries sustained by the claimant whilst passengers in a car driven by Mr Ioan Bura, who sadly died in the accident. The second claimant is the brother of Mr Bura and the other two claimants were passengers in the vehicle.
The original claim was brought against the defendant insurer pursuant to the European Communities (Rights against Insurers) Regulations 2002. The claimants now appreciate that those Regulations do not provide the claimant with a direct right of action against the insurer for a number of reasons, one of which is that, for the Regulation to apply, the accident must occur in the UK.
By the time that the claimants had appreciated the defect in their original proceedings, the relevant limitation period, which it is common ground was that which applies under the law of Romania, had expired. The issue which both Master Eastman and HHJ Cotter QC had to decide was whether the estate of Mr Bura could properly be substituted for the insurer.
The issue turns upon the construction of section 35(5)(b) and (6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980 and CPR Part 19.5(2) and (3)(b).
This is a second appeal and I should only grant permission to appeal if I am satisfied that the appeal raises an important point of principle or practice, or that there are other compelling reasons why the Court of Appeal should hear the appeal.
Once a limitation period has expired the effect of section 35 is that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial