BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Compass Group v Hobart Manufacturing Co Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 441 (13 March 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/441.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 441 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM ORDER OF MR JUSTICE GARLAND
Strand London WC2 Wednesday, 13th March 2002 |
||
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE MANTELL
SIR SWINTON THOMAS
____________________
COMPASS GROUP | ||
- v - | ||
HOBART MANUFACTURING CO LTD |
____________________
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2HD
Tel: 0171 421 4040
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR R BRENT (Instructed by Herbert Smith of London) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"What is said on behalf of the defendant"
"is that the evidence that Forte UK Limited had an interest in the property and/or were the operators of Little Chef is confused and uncertain. They may well have been the operators; there is evidence to that effect. But what interest had they in the property? Some research has been done by looking in the Land Registry. It appears possible that Forte UK Ltd had a leasehold interest but what that interest was is, at the moment, anybody's guess ,because they appear alternatively as sub-tenants under a long lease carved out from a very long lease, being sub-tenants at a peppercorn rent, and then seem to re-appear as sub-sub-tenants with an intermediate lessor, Granada Roadside Restaurants. The matter is complicated by the fact that the bill for rebuilding the Little Chef from the contractors was sent to Granada Roadside Restaurants; the invoice for the architects' fees went to Forte Roadside Restaurants; and Forte UK, on the documents before the court are shown as paying some £2,200 for items of catering equipment."
"It can probably be said that there are indications that Forte UK had a proprietary interest. It is probable that they were the operators. But there are the difficulties to which I have adverted, and it seems to me that if they wish to be joined as parties to an action, they must be able to plead affirmatively what their title was and what their loss is, because until one gets to that stage anything less is so vague and uncertain that the defendant cannot reasonably be expected to plead to it; a defendant must know who is claiming the loss, and why."
"The court may order a new party to be substituted for an existing one if -
(a) the existing party's interest or liability has passed to the new party; and
(b) it is desirable to substitute the new party so that the court can resolve the matters in dispute in the proceedings."
"A procedural difficulty is that once the Compass Group Plc have disappeared as being wholly inappropriate claimants, what is sought by the amendment is not the addition of a claimant in the form of Forte UK, but, as I said, whoever at the end of the day will turn out to be an appropriate claimant. This is a substitution, and a substitution is only possible under CPR 19.2 (4) (a) if the interest of the substituted party has passed to the new party, and there is no question here of any assignment of the cause of action or of the right to litigate. I simply add that of course a party cannot be added, as opposed to substituted, after the expiration of the limitation period; that would achieve nothing in any event; but CPR 19.5 (2) (a) makes that absolutely clear."
"(1) This rule applies where a party is to be added or substituted except where the case falls within rule 19.5 (special provisions about changing parties after the end of a relevant limitation period).
(2) The court may order a person to be added as a new party if -
(a) it is desirable to add the new party so that the court can resolve all the matters in dispute in the proceedings; or
(b) there is an issue involving the new party as an existing party which is connected to the matters in dispute in the proceedings, and it is desirable to add the new party so that the court can resolve that issue.
(3) The court may order any person to cease to be a party if it is not desirable for that person to be a party to the proceedings."