Clyde & Co Llp & Anor v New Look Interiors of Marlow Ltd & Anor [2009] EWHC 173 (QB) (06 February 2009)

Clyde & Co Llp & Anor v New Look Interiors of Marlow Ltd & Anor [2009] EWHC 173 (QB) (06 February 2009)

The proposed amendments were speculative, insufficiently particularised, and unsupported by evidence. The Master erred in exercising his discretion to allow the amendments, as the claim sought to reverse the burden of proof and would impose an intolerable burden on the Defendants. The appeal is allowed and permission to amend is refused.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 173 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Clyde & Co LLP; Claimant/respondent: Clyde & Co (A Firm); Defendant/appellant: New Look Interiors of Marlow Limited; Defendant/appellant: Anthony Phillip Blayden
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Against Order Granting Permission to Amend Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Implied Terms, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Negligent Misstatement, Mistake, Disclosure, Burden of Proof
Civil Procedure Contract Law Tort Law Amendment of Pleadings Implied Terms Fraudulent Misrepresentation Negligent Misstatement Mistake +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clyde & Co LLP

Claimant/respondent

Clyde & Co (A Firm)

Claimant/respondent

New Look Interiors of Marlow Limited

Defendant/appellant

Anthony Phillip Blayden

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Against Order Granting Permission to Amend Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred in granting permission to amend the particulars of claim
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments were speculative, unsupported by evidence, and insufficiently particularised
  3. 3 Whether the implied terms pleaded could properly be implied into the contracts

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendments were speculative, insufficiently particularised, and unsupported by evidence. The Master erred in exercising his discretion to allow the amendments, as the claim sought to reverse the burden of proof and would impose an intolerable burden on the Defendants. The appeal is allowed and permission to amend is refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Permission to amend particulars of claim refused
  • Claimants may seek to plead a more focused and particularised case if appropriate