Walford v Richards
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE JAMES,LORD JUSTICE BRIDGE |
| Judgment Date | 02 October 1975 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1975] EWCA Civ J1002-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 02 October 1975 |
[1975] EWCA Civ J1002-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Revised
The Master Of The Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice James and
Lord Justice Bridge
Mr JOHN FLETCHER (of Counsel) appeared on behalf of the applicants.
There was no other appearance.
Mr. Fletcher, we need not trouble you any further.
I will first state the facts and the law as it existed before the Limitation Act 1975 which has just come into our hands. On 9th October 1970 the plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Walford and their child, were injured in an accident. The car in which they were riding was run into by a car owned by Messrs. Willis & Sons Ltd. and driven by Mr. Norris. It locked as if it was an ordinary road a accident which was due to negligent driving by the defendants; but on investigation, the oar was found to be defective. The defendants said that the driver was not to blame at all. The accident was, they said, due to the fault of a garage. The car had been sent for repair and the garage had not repaired it properly. They had returned it with defective brakes. The injured plaintiffs did not know the name and address of the garage. They asked for it; but they did not get any reply. On 5th October 1972 the injured plaintiff issued a writ against the driver of the vehicle and the owner. The defendants put in a defence saying it was not their fault but it was the fault of the garage. It was in that defence on 8th January 1973 that the defendants, for the first time, named the garage. They said that the accident was due to the fault of J.L. Richards of Treharris, Glamorganshire. That was on 8th January 1973. Even then, the defendants did not take third party proceedings against the garage. It was not until 10th October 1973 that the defendants applied to join Richards, the garage owner, as a third party. By that time it was too late for the plaintiffs to sue Richards because the three years had just elapsed since the date of the accident. Nevertheless the plaintiffs later on did try to sue Mr. Richards. They applied to join him as a defendant to the existing proceedings. On 25th February 1975 Mr. Justice Tudor Evans gave leave to the plaintiffs to join Mr. Richards as thirddefendant. Mr. Richards entered a conditional appearance and applied to set aside that leave, on the ground that, if joined as defendants, they would be deprived of a defence under the Statute of Limitations. It looked to the plaintiffs that that application would succeed. So the plaintiffs did not proceed further in that action against Mr. Richards. Instead the plaintiffs made an application to bring a new action against Richards under the Limitation Act 1963. They relied on the fact that they did not know the name and address of the garage until 8th January 1973. Mr. Justice Forbes refused the application. He seemed to think that Mr. Justice Tudor Evans was right in adding Richards as defendant to the original action, and in those circumstances he did not think it was right to give leave under the Limitation Act 1963.
To my mind, this is plainly a case within the Limitation Act 1963. The identity of the garage was a "material fact of a decisive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowie v Southorns (A Firm)
...as to identity in 14A(8)(b) were meant to cover situations such as those in Simpson v Norwest Holst Southern Limited [1981] WLR 968 and Walford v Richards [1976] 1 Lloyds Reports 526 where either the correct name of the potential defendant or his very existence was not known to the potentia......
-
Boylan v Motor Distributors Ltd
... ... (UK) FOWELL V NATIONAL COAL BOARD 1986 TLR 289 MACGEE ON LIMITATION PERIODS 1990 ED 119 – 121 & 128 – 133 WALFOR V RICHARDS 1976 LLR 526 THOMPSON V BROWN 1981 1 WLR 744 PRESTON & NEWSOM LIMITATION OF ACTIONS 4ED 27 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (AMDT) ACT ... 289 ... 52 MacGee on Limitation Periods (1990) Edition, page 119 to 121 and page 128 to 133 ... 53 Walford v. Richards (1976) Lloyds Law Reports 526 ... 54 Thompson v. Brown (1981) 1 W.L.R. 744 ... 55 Preston and Newsom on ... ...
-
Lau Yan Chor v Hang Lung (Administration) Ltd. And Weli Co. Ltd. (Third Party)
...Davies v. Read Stock & Co. Ltd and Anor Court of Appeal (Civil Division) 26 July 1984 and Walford and Others v. Richards [1976] 1 Lloyds Law Reports 526 upon which Mr Kwok for the Respondent Plaintiff relies for the commonsense application of the statute to the circumstances of each case. M......
-
Indu Mati v. Ajnesh Vinesh
...character’ in Re Clark v. Forbes Stuart (Thames Street) Ltd. (intended action) (1964) 2 ALL E.R. 282), and Walford v. Richards (1976) 1 Lloyds Rep. 526). A Statute of Limitation cannot begin to run unless there are two things present - a party capable of suing and a party liable to be sued ......