Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Court had no discretion but to set aside third party proceedings where plaintiff had compromised with the third party
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in personal injury proceedings arising from an incident wherein the Plaintiff was struck when her vehicle rolled back, and wherein the Plaintiff had discontinued as against one defendant and then the remaining defendants successfully applied to have that former defendant joined as a third party, sets aside the third party notice on the grounds that the defendants did not act as soon as was reasonably possible; and the court strikes out the third party proceedings on the grounds that as an agreement and compromise of an action constitutes a valid accord of the relevant statutory provisions, which provide that the plaintiff shall be deemed to be responsible for the acts of the wrongdoer whose liability is so discharged, leaving the court with no discretion but to strike out the third party proceedings.
Applications to set aside third party notices - personal injuries proceedings arising from incident wherein the Plaintiff’s vehicle rolled back and collided with her – plaintiff discontinued as against the fourth named defendant – second and third named defendants informed former fourth named defendant of intention to join them as a third party – covid – motion to set aside third party notice – separate motion third party proceedings were frivolous, vexatious and/or bound to fail which they based to dismiss third party proceedings – argument based on the notice of discontinuance constituting an accord and release - chronology of relevant event – delay -first motion to set aside the third party procedure - whole circumstances of the case must be considered in analysing the delay - defendants’ solicitor does not identify any particular difficulty their office experienced as a result lockdown at that time - only justification for the delay as the fact that the third party had previously been a defendant and, therefore, had full knowledge of the proceedings well before they were served with the third party notice – not a legal basis – did not act as soon as is reasonably possible – third party notice set aside - motion to strike out the third party proceedings - Civil Liability Act 1961 - compromise of proceedings will be a valid accord – third party proceedings dismissed
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
