Bridgeman v Brown

A claim should not be struck out where liability depends on a serious, live factual dispute requiring oral evidence. The summary judgment jurisdiction is available for suitable issues, but it is inappropriate where the evidence requires a trial. Procedural rules concerning joinder and limitation should be used flexibly to avoid disproportionate injustice. Where the identity of the liable driver remains unresolved, the court may direct that the factual issue, any limitation application and any necessary joinder application be dealt with together.

The claimant appealed from an order of His Honour Judge Thompson QC in the Southampton County Court. The judge struck out her road-traffic claim against John McAlpine Brown and refused her application to add or substitute his wife, Mrs Brown, as a defendant.

The accident liability was not substantively disputed, but the parties disagreed about who had been driving. The judge resolved that issue on paper evidence, concluded that Mrs Brown was the driver, and held that the limitation period against her had expired. The central questions were whether the claim could properly be struck out or summarily determined and how the limitation and joinder issues should be managed.

1. Appeal allowed. The judge’s order was set aside. The issues were directed to be listed for directions and dealt with together.
2. The claim could not properly be struck out under CPR 3.4(2). Strike-out jurisdiction is concerned with the statement of case and its procedural defects; it does not ordinarily permit the court to resolve disputed evidence about the merits of the claim.
3. The identity of the driver could potentially be addressed under the summary judgment jurisdiction in CPR 24.2. That jurisdiction is unsuitable, however, where the issue is a serious and live factual dispute. The evidence in this case required oral evidence from the persons involved, either at trial or at a separate hearing of the issue.
4. The joinder issue was governed by CPR 19.4. The court did not need finally to determine the scope of the mistake provisions or their relationship with Limitation Act 1980 section 35 because the factual issue had not been properly determined.
5. Alternatively, CPR 19.4(4)(b) permitted Mrs Brown to be joined for the purpose of determining whether the personal-injury limitation provisions should be disapplied under section 33, with that issue postponed until trial. Directing the identity, limitation and joinder issues to be dealt with together was proportionate, particularly because separate proceedings and a separate limitation application could otherwise be issued.
6. Evans LJ added that pursuing the strike-out application was a wholly unmeritorious technical point inconsistent with the spirit and best practice of the Civil Procedure Rules. Costs were awarded to the claimant, including indemnity costs on the appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): allowed the appeal, set aside the county court order, and directed that the relevant issues be listed for directions and dealt with together.
• Southampton County Court: struck out the claim against Mr Brown and refused the application to add Mrs Brown as a party.