Ord and Another v Belhaven Pubs Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date13 February 1998
Date13 February 1998
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)

Court of Appeal

Before Lord Justice Hobhouse, Lord Justice Brooke and Sir John Balcombe

Ord and Another
and
Belhaven Pubs Ltd

Practice - power to order person to be made party - company cannot be substituted

Name of company cannot be substituted

The discretion given by Order 15, rule 7(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court to order a person to be made a party to proceedings was a wide one but it was not wide enough to cover the situation where a plaintiff wished to substitute, in place of the defendant, either a company which was in the same ownership as, or a company which was the shareholder of the defendant company.

The Court of Appeal so held in allowing an interlocutory appeal by the defendant, Belhaven Pubs Ltd, against an order of Judge Alton, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, in August 1997, substituting Ascot Holding plc for

the defendant, in an action, inter alia, for rescission of a contract to acquire a lease of the Fox Inn, Stanford, brought by the plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs Ord.

Order 15, rule 7 provides: "(2) Where at any stage of the proceedings in any cause or matter the interest of any party is assigned or transmitted to or devolves upon some other person, the court may, if it thinks it necessary in order to ensure that all matters in dispute in the cause or matter may be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated upon, order that other person to be made a party to the cause or matter and the proceedings to be carried on as if he had been substituted for the first mentioned party."

Mr John Brisby, QC and Mr Barry Stancombe for Belhaven Pubs; Mr Michael Ashe, QC and Mr Richard Wilson for Mr and Mrs Ord.

LORD JUSTICE HOBHOUSE said that the plaintiffs' summons asking for leave to substitute Ascot Estates plc and/or Ascot Holdings plc for the defendant seemed to have arisen from their appreciation that the defendant no longer had substantial assets. The two companies were respectively the parent company of the defendant and another subsidiary company.

Judge Alton...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others v Prest
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 26 October 2012
    ...124 A decision not referred to in VTB, but to which we were and which it is convenient to notice, is that of this court in Ord and another v. Bellhaven Pubs Ltd [1998] 2 BCLC 447. That was a commercial case in which the issue was whether, in a case in which the defendant company was percei......
  • Mackt Logistics (M) Sdn Bhd v Malaysian Airline System Berhad
    • Malaysia
    • Court of Appeal (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • Trade Credit Finance No (1) Ltd and National Westminster Bank Plc and Dinc Bilgin Lime Company Ltd and Coutts & Company
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 3 November 2004
    ...an undervalue, an adequate and appropriate remedy is to be found in section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986: see Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [1998] BCC 607, 616 per Sir John Balcombe. THE FIRST DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION TO DISCHARGE THE FREEZING ORDER 81 By an application notice dated 18 June 2004......
  • Linsen Transport International Ltd v Humpuss Sea Transport PTE Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 14 September 2011
    ...J's reasoning. 121 In any event, the relevant point does not rest with Yukong. In the subsequent decision of the Court of Appeal in Ord v Belhaven Pubs Ltd [1998] 2 BCLC 447 (albeit not an impropriety case) the Court of Appeal expressly disapproved the reasoning in Creasey. In that case, th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT