Mercer Limited & Anor v Ballinger & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 996 (17 July 2014)

Mercer Limited & Anor v Ballinger & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 996 (17 July 2014)

The Court held that the Appellants had a reasonably arguable limitation defence to the proposed amendments, and the Respondents failed to show otherwise. The Category 4 and 5(i) amendments relating to the 2002 valuations did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the existing claims, as they would require investigation of new facts and circumstances. The Category 5(ii) amendments introduced a new breach of duty and required new factual enquiries. Therefore, permission to amend was wrongly granted for Category 4 and 5(i) (as to 2002 valuations), and rightly refused for Category 5(ii).

Citation
[2014] EWCA Civ 996
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Mercer Limited; Appellant / Defendant: Sedgwick Noble Lowndes Limited; Respondent / Claimant: Leslie Francis Ballinger; Respondent / Claimant: Nosko Trustees Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Chancery Division (manchester District Registry) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Interlocutory Application to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation of Actions, Professional Negligence, Trustees' Duties, Actuarial Valuation, Pension Scheme Administration
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Pensions Law Amendment of Pleadings Limitation of Actions Trustees' Duties Actuarial Valuation Pension Scheme Administration

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mercer Limited

Appellant / Defendant

Sedgwick Noble Lowndes Limited

Appellant / Defendant

Leslie Francis Ballinger

Respondent / Claimant

Nosko Trustees Limited

Respondent / Claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Chancery Division (manchester District Registry) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Interlocutory Application to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the proper approach to determining whether a proposed new claim is time-barred on an application to amend after expiry of the limitation period?
  2. 2 Upon whom lies the burden of persuasion regarding limitation at the amendment stage?
  3. 3 Do the proposed new claims arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as those already in issue in the proceedings?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Appellants had a reasonably arguable limitation defence to the proposed amendments, and the Respondents failed to show otherwise. The Category 4 and 5(i) amendments relating to the 2002 valuations did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the existing claims, as they would require investigation of new facts and circumstances. The Category 5(ii) amendments introduced a new breach of duty and required new factual enquiries. Therefore, permission to amend was wrongly granted for Category 4 and 5(i) (as to 2002 valuations), and rightly refused for Category 5(ii).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Permission to amend to add Category 4 and Category 5(i) claims relating to 2002 valuations refused.
  • Permission to amend to add Category 5(ii) claims refused.