Ivy Technology Ltd v Martin & Ors

Ivy Technology Ltd v Martin & Ors

The court held that the new claims sought to be introduced by amendment have a real prospect of success and carry some degree of conviction, and that the question of the Second Defendant's liability as principal should be determined at trial after fuller investigation of the facts. However, the proposed amendment to plead warranties as representations was refused as it had no real prospect of success.

Parties
Claimant: Ivy Technology Limited; First Defendant: Barry Martin; Second Defendant: Paul Bell; Third Defendant: Axl Media Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Application to Amend Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Permission to amend granted in part, refused in part
Legal Topics
Agency, Undisclosed Principal, Amendment of Pleadings, Estoppel, Election, Warranties, Representations
Contract Law Tort Law Civil Procedure Agency Undisclosed Principal Amendment of Pleadings Estoppel Election +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ivy Technology Limited

Claimant

Barry Martin

First Defendant

Paul Bell

Second Defendant

Axl Media Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Application to Amend Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant should be granted permission to amend its Particulars of Claim to add claims against the Second Defendant as principal to the agreement
  2. 2 Whether the terms of the agreement exclude liability of the Second Defendant as a disclosed or undisclosed principal
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant is estopped or has elected to proceed only against the First Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the new claims sought to be introduced by amendment have a real prospect of success and carry some degree of conviction, and that the question of the Second Defendant's liability as principal should be determined at trial after fuller investigation of the facts. However, the proposed amendment to plead warranties as representations was refused as it had no real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Permission to amend granted in part, refused in part

Orders

  • Permission to amend Particulars of Claim to add claims against the Second Defendant as principal granted
  • Permission to amend to plead warranties as representations refused