Seabridge v H. Cox & Sons (Plant Hire) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE DIPLOCK,LORD JUSTICE SALMON |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 1967 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1967] EWCA Civ J1220-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 20 December 1967 |
[1967] EWCA Civ J1220-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
From: Mr. Justice Mocatta
The Master Of The Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Diplock and
Lord Justice Salmon
Mr A. de Piro, Q. C. And Mr G. Laughland (Instructed By Messrs Langton & passmore, Agents for Messrs Wilkins & Son, Aylesbury, Bucks) appeared as Counsel for the Appellants.
Mr Raymond Kidwell (instructed by Messrs Clifford Turner & Co.) appeared as Counsel for the Respondents.
On the 18th September, 1964, Mr Barclay and his family in their car were in collision with a lorry owned by Cox & Sons. Mr Barclay's wife and son were killed. Mr Barclay himself was injured. So was his son's finance, Miss Seabridge. Cox's lorry was on its wrong side of the road. It looked as though there was a clear claim for damages against Cox's.
On the 11th November, 1965, four write were issued against Cox's, the owners of the lorry. In their defence, Cox's said that it was an inevitable accident. They had on the lorry remould tyres, one of then burst and threw the lorry off course. They said it was ell the fault of the Company Which supplied the remould tyres, India Tyres Ltd. on the 18th May, 1967, Cox's brought in India Tyres Ltd. as third parties.
When the plaintiffs and their advisers saw the defence of Cox's, they realised there was a risk in going on against Cox's alone: because Cox's might escape liability altogether. So they sought to add India Tyres Ltd. as defendants. They applied under the modern rule, Order 15, rule 6. It enables the Court to order a party to be added if his "presence before the court is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute in the cause or matter may be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated upon". The Master made an order that India Tyres Ltd. be added and that the plaintiff be at liberty to amend the writ accordingly. The order was made on the 15th September, 1967, which was a Friday. Note the date, because the accident was on the 18th September, 1964, which was nearly three years before. The period of limitation would expire on the 18th September, 1967, but the plaintiffs would hove the whole of that day in which to bring the action, see Marren v. Dawson Bentley & Co. Ltd., 1961, 2 Quean's Bench, p. 135.
On the 18th September, 1967 (which was the three years' anniversary of the accident), the writ was amended in accordance with Order 15, rule 8. On that day an amended writwas taken to the Central Office. It had on it the name of India Tyres Ltd. added as defendants in red ink. It was resealed by the Central office and a copy was attached to the file. A note was made of the date. A stamp was put on the writ on that day to show it was amended. There is a record at the top of the writ: "Amended on 18th September, 1967".
One would have thought that, as against the defendants, India Tyres Ltd., the action was brought just in time. But the amended writ was not served on India Tyres Ltd. until two or three days later - I think the 21st September - by poet. India Tyres Ltd. entered a conditional appearance. They said that the amendment was too late. It only took effect, they said, on the date of service. That was the 2lst September. By that time the three years had run and they were entitled to the benefit of the statute of Limitations. They sought to set aside the amendment on the ground of irregularity.
The old rule, Order 16, rule 11 said that when a party is added, the proceedings against such party should "be deemed to have begun only on the service of such writ". If that rule had been the rule in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ketteman v Hansel Properties Ltd
...does not become a party until not only has the writ been amended but also the amended writ has been served upon him But in Seabridge v. H. Cox & Sons (Plant Hire) Ltd. [1968] 2 Q.B. 46, upon the construction of an earlier version of the rule in the same terms, the Court of Appeal took a di......
-
Ketteman v Hansel Properties Ltd
...does not become a party until not only has the writ been amended but also the amended writ has been served upon him But in Seabridge v. H. Cox & Sons (Plant Hire) Ltd. [1968] 2 Q.B. 46, upon the construction of an earlier version of the rule in the same terms, the Court of Appeal took a di......
- Folin & Brothers Sdn Bhd v Wong Foh Ling & Wongswee Lin and Others
-
Liff v Peasley
...added K as a defendant. In an interesting judgment he based his decision on principle and a decision of this Court in Seabridge -v- H, Cox & Sons (Plant Hire) Ltd, (1968) 2 Queen's Bench, 46. He considered that a later decision of this Court in Braniff -v- Holland & Hannen and Cubitts (Sout......
-
Civil Procedure
...was decided prior to the rule amendments, Woo Bih Li J endorsed the views of Lord Denning in Seabridge v H Cox & Sons (Plant Hire) Ltd[1968] 2 QB 46 to the effect that the person added as a defendant should be treated as having been proceeded against when the amendment to the writ takes eff......