Blue Tropic Ltd & Anor v Chkhartishvili [2016] EWCA Civ 1259 (09 December 2016)

Blue Tropic Ltd & Anor v Chkhartishvili [2016] EWCA Civ 1259 (09 December 2016)

The direct claim introduced by amendment constituted a new cause of action because it required proof of Vano's dishonest intention to misappropriate the assets, which was not an ingredient of the original claim. This new cause of action did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the original claim, as the essential factual focus shifted from the conduct of Mr Kavtaradze to the dishonest intention of Vano. Therefore, the amendment should not have been permitted after the expiry of the limitation period, and the action must be dismissed.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 1259
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Blue Tropic Limited; Claimant/respondent: Coppella Ventures Limited; Defendant/appellant: Ivane Chkhartishvili
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; action dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation Periods, Foreign Law (georgian Law), Cause of Action, Intentional Torts
Civil Procedure Private International Law Tort Amendment of Pleadings Limitation Periods Foreign Law (georgian Law) Cause of Action Intentional Torts

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Blue Tropic Limited

Claimant/respondent

Coppella Ventures Limited

Claimant/respondent

Ivane Chkhartishvili

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in granting permission for a late amendment to the claim after expiry of the relevant foreign limitation period
  2. 2 Whether the amendment introduced a new cause of action
  3. 3 Whether the new cause of action arose out of the same or substantially the same facts as the original claim

Ratio Decidendi

The direct claim introduced by amendment constituted a new cause of action because it required proof of Vano's dishonest intention to misappropriate the assets, which was not an ingredient of the original claim. This new cause of action did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the original claim, as the essential factual focus shifted from the conduct of Mr Kavtaradze to the dishonest intention of Vano. Therefore, the amendment should not have been permitted after the expiry of the limitation period, and the action must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; action dismissed

Orders

  • The amendment introducing the direct claim is disallowed.
  • The claimants' action is dismissed.