Rowe v Tregaskes
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE DAVIES,LORD JUSTICE WINN |
| Judgment Date | 10 July 1968 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1968] EWCA Civ J0710-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 10 July 1968 |
[1968] EWCA Civ J0710-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
From: Mr. Justice Nield, London, (In Chambers)(Q.B.D.)
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning),
Lord Justice Davies, and
Lord Justice Winn
MR PHILIP OWEN, Q.C. and MR SWIMTOM THOMAS (instructed by Messrs. Waterhouse & Co., Agents for Messrs. Foot & Bowden, Plymouth) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Plaintiff).
MR MICHAEL TURNER (instructed by Messrs. Berrymans, Agents for Messrs. Bond Pearce & Co., Plymouth) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Defendant).
This is another case in which there is a summons to dismiss an action for want of prosecution. It arises out of an accident which took place as long ago as 23rd November, 1962. Mr. Howe was a mason in Cornwall employed by a builder, Mr. Tregaskes. Together with another man, he was replacing some slates on the roof of a shop in Tywardreath. In some way or other Mr. Howe fell from the roof and was severely injured.
On 30th May, 1963, some six months after the accident, he reported the accident to his Union, the Transport and General workers Union. But the Union do not seem to have made any claim on his behalf for many months. Then on 25th March, 1965, the London Office of the Union wrote to Mr. Tregaskes, the builder, saying that Mr. Howe had been injured on 23rd November, 1962. The Union said: "We are of the opinion that this accident was the result of your failure to comply with your Statutory and/or Common Law duty", but they gave no particulars of their complaint. On 20th April, 1965, the insurers for Mr. Tregaskes replied: "Unfortunately this is the first notification of such an incident we have received, and further enquiries will have to be made". So it was nearly two and a half years after the accident that any claim was made on Mr. Tregaskes or the insurers. There was then some correspondence between the Union and the insurers. The insurers pointed out the difficulties they were in because of the delay. Eventually, in September, 1965, the Union instructed solicitors at Plymouth to issue what was described as a "protective writ", that is, a writ which was to be issued so as to protect the Plaintiff from having his claim barred by the Statute of Limitations. It was not to be served but to be kept in the pocket pending negotiations. The solicitors did as they were told. They issued the writ but did not serve it. The solicitors were not asked to do any more. Negotiations continued by the insurers, but eventually, on 16th March, 1966, the insurers repudiated liability. They said that Mr. Tregaskes was not liable to the Plaintiff. That was in March, 1966, three and a half years after the accident.
In June, 1966, the Union instructed the solicitors to take over the conduct of the action. On 9th August, 1966, the defendants entered an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v Turner
...for the delay, no difficulty arises. There can be no injustice in his bearing the consequences of his own fault". 14 In a later case, Rowe v. Tregaskes, in 1968 3 All England at page 447, a case to which both my Lord, Lord Justice Winn, and I were parties, the Master of the Rolls said, at p......
-
Birkett v James
...of the delay and that if prejudice had resulted therefrom the action could properly be struck out, since, as Lord Denning M.R. said in Rowe v. Tregaskes [1968] 1 W.L.R., at 1477F, "The delay in the first two or three years is often the most prejudicial of all". Having now had the advantage ......
-
M.A. Brown and Company Ltd et Al v Daito Kogyo Company Ltd
...the defendant to satisfy the court that there is a substantial risk that it is not possible to have a fair trial of the issues. 19 In Rowe v. Tregaskes [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1475, the plaintiff was injured in November, 1982, in the course of his employment by the defendant He did not, however, is......
-
Dowd v Kerry County Council
...allowed for delivery of a statement of claim could be granted without the defendants being prejudiced thereby. Rowe v. TregaskesWLR [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1475; Fitzpatrick v. Batger & Co. Ltd.WLR [1967] 1 W.L.R. 706 and Allen v. Sir Alfred McAlpine & Sons Ltd.ELR[1968] 2 Q.B. 229 considered. Supr......