BARROWFEN PROPERTIES LIMITED v GIRISH DAHYABHAI PATEL

BARROWFEN PROPERTIES LIMITED v GIRISH DAHYABHAI PATEL

The disputed paragraphs of factual and expert evidence fall within the scope of the reserved matters and the court's permission for further evidence. The proposed amendments to plead additional financial costs, including equity funding, have a real prospect of success and should be permitted. The Barrell jurisdiction is not engaged as the reserved matters have not been finally determined. The balance of justice favours allowing the amendments, and any prejudice to S&B can be compensated in costs.

Parties
Claimant: Barrowfen Properties Limited; First Defendant: Girish Dahyabhai Patel; Second Defendant: Stevens & Bolton LLP; Third Defendant: Barrowfen Properties II Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial/property / Post Trial Application Regarding Admissibility of Evidence and Permission to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Application by S&B to exclude evidence dismissed; Barrowfen's application for permission to re-re-amend reply allowed.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Admissibility of Evidence, Damages Assessment, Collateral Benefits, Case Management
Civil Procedure Property Law Professional Negligence Amendment of Pleadings Admissibility of Evidence Damages Assessment Collateral Benefits Case Management

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barrowfen Properties Limited

Claimant

Girish Dahyabhai Patel

First Defendant

Stevens & Bolton LLP

Second Defendant

Barrowfen Properties II Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial/property / Post Trial Application Regarding Admissibility of Evidence and Permission to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the disputed paragraphs of factual and expert evidence served by the claimant fall within the scope of the court's permission to adduce further evidence
  2. 2 Whether the claimant should be permitted to re-re-amend its reply to plead additional financial costs including equity funding
  3. 3 Whether the court's previous decisions preclude the claimant from raising the additional costs now

Ratio Decidendi

The disputed paragraphs of factual and expert evidence fall within the scope of the reserved matters and the court's permission for further evidence. The proposed amendments to plead additional financial costs, including equity funding, have a real prospect of success and should be permitted. The Barrell jurisdiction is not engaged as the reserved matters have not been finally determined. The balance of justice favours allowing the amendments, and any prejudice to S&B can be compensated in costs.

Court Disposition

Application by S&B to exclude evidence dismissed; Barrowfen's application for permission to re-re-amend reply allowed.

Orders

  • Disputed paragraphs of Prashant 6 and Powell 1 are admissible and fall within the reserved matters.
  • Barrowfen granted permission to re-re-amend the reply to plead additional financial costs including equity funding.