Wall v Radford
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 January 1991 |
| Date | 31 January 1991 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Before Mr Justice Popplewell
Road traffic - apportionment of liability - alteration
Once liability in a road traffic accident had been apportioned by a passenger suing both drivers, it was not open to one of the drivers relying on the same facts subsequently to argue in her suit against the other driver that that apportionment should be altered.
Mr Justice Popplewell so held in the Queen's Bench Division in a reserved judgment following the trial of a preliminary issue in an action by Deborah Wall against Keith Radford for damages for personal injury. The preliminary issue was to decide whether liability had already been determined and was therefore res judicata.
Mr Jonathan Sofer for the plaintiff; Mr Guy Anthony for the defendant.
MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL said that in October 1990 in an action by the plaintiff's passenger for damages for personal injury resulting from the same collision both the plaintiff and the defendant had been found to be equally liable.
The present action had been brought by the plaintiff against the defendant for damages for personal injury arising out of the same collision.
The defendant argued that the issue of the respective negligence of the plaintiff and the defendant, having already been decided in the earlier action, was either res judicata or issue estoppel, and that it would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow the action to proceed other than by way of equal apportionment.
The plaintiff argued that first, the parties were not the same in the two actions and second, the duty owed by the drivers to the injured passenger...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Talbot v Berkshire County Council
...Henderson been cited: see too Marginson v Blackburn Borough CouncilELR ([1939] 2 KB 426). And had it been relied on in Wall v RadfordUNK([1992] RTR 109) it might have afforded a complete answer to the plaintiff's claim. There was every reason why the rule in Henderson should apply in person......
- Sellen v Bailey
-
Jaidin bin Jaiman v Loganathan a/l Karpaya
...Yeow Khoon v Tan Yeow Tat [2003] 3 SLR (R) 486; [2003] 3 SLR 486 (folld) Randolph v Tuck [1962] 1 QB 175 (not folld) Wall v Radford [1991] 2 All ER 741; [1992] RTR 109 (refd) Wood v Luscombe [1966] 1 QB 169 (refd) Michael Han Hean Juan (Hoh Law Corporation) for the plaintiff Roger Yek (Lawr......
-
Jaidin bin Jaiman v Loganathan a/l Karpaya and another
...sometimes refused to distinguish between a nominal party and his insurer who is acting with subrogation rights (see eg, Wall v Radford [1992] R.T.R. 109, 117; Craddock’s Transport Ltd v Stuart [1970] NZLR 499 CA, 524). As pointed out by the authors of Res Judicata: There will be many fewer ......