7,424 judgments 29,712 public-register documents 143,540 judgment pages 132,515 public-register pages 276,055 total pages
Judgment

Robert Woods v Floris Thompson (1st Defendant), Saxon MG Insurance Co Ltd (2nd Defendant) - Judgment

G 0229/2015 · 2016-07-12

Insurance Law; Civil procedure and practice; Motor Vehicle Insurance (Third Party Risks) Law (2012 Revision), s.4, 15 and 17; Limitation Law (1996 Revision), s. 30, GCR. 0.20, 0.14, 0.14A, 0.15, Rule 6; Whether Third Party can properly sue Insurance Company for consequential relief, before obtaining judgment against insured; Whether declaration would be just in relation to all parties; Whether the most effective way of resolving the issues; Application to Strike Out and Summary Judgment Application by insurer. Whether a third party can sue an insurer before obtaining judgment against the insured; Application to strike out and for summary judgment

Full metadata
Full text8 paragraphs Download PDF

Use paragraph links to cite this judgment, or download the original PDF. Select text to copy a passage.

In the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands — Civil Division
Cause No. G 0229/2015
Between
Robert Woods
- v -
Floris Thompson (1st Defendant), Saxon MG Insurance Co Ltd (2nd Defendant) - Judgment
Before
Mangatal J
Judgment delivered 2016-07-12

IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE C
JUDGMENT The Plaintiff,
any judgment obtained by the Plaintiff against the
against the 1st Defendant and/or

The Plaintiff’s claim against the
an insurer prior to obtaining judgment against the

Ms. Dobbyn

Ms. Dobbyn
declaration as to future rights can be made
that Saxon could attempt to rely upon
within the three-year limitation period, as
(c) Insures such person, persons
(b) in respect of any judgment,
(3) No sum shall be payable

Section 30 of
by or on behalf of the holders of
That, as Lord Denning declares at
if Potters in the end are

Counsel for Saxon,
proceedings in the personal injury claim

An application under section
declaration of future liability is not, in
brought, when the proceedings should be
of a contract to which the Claimant
party as part of the arrangements for securing
parties, the point was not academic
in the public interest to decide the issue
observations in Feetum v Levy and the
However, I must say that Ms.
There is absolutely no foundation or merit in
Notwithstanding the breadth of relief nowadays obtain

Costs are awarded to S

Find similar