Vilca & Ors v XSTRATA Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 2096 (QB) (11 August 2017)

Vilca & Ors v XSTRATA Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 2096 (QB) (11 August 2017)

The amendment to plead a limitation defence under Peruvian law is late but not very late, and although unexplained, it raises an important issue with real prospects of success. The amendment can be accommodated in the trial process without adverse effects on the efficiency of the litigation or the wider interests of justice. The prospect of prejudice to the Claimants is outweighed by the risk of injustice to the Defendants if the amendment is excluded. Allowing the amendment is proportionate and in accordance with the Overriding Objective.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2096 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Daniel Alfredo Condori Vilca & Others; First Defendant: Xstrata Limited; Second Defendant: Compania Minera Antapaccay S.A. (formerly Xstrata Tintaya S.A.)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application to Amend Defence
Outcome
Application allowed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation Period, Applicable Law, Case Management, Overriding Objective
Civil Procedure Private International Law Tort Amendment of Pleadings Limitation Period Applicable Law Case Management Overriding Objective

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

Parties

Daniel Alfredo Condori Vilca & Others

Claimant

Xstrata Limited

First Defendant

Compania Minera Antapaccay S.A. (formerly Xstrata Tintaya S.A.)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application to Amend Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants should be permitted to amend their Defence to plead a limitation defence under Peruvian law to the claims brought by the Claimants.
  2. 2 Whether the lateness of the amendment justifies refusing permission to amend.

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment to plead a limitation defence under Peruvian law is late but not very late, and although unexplained, it raises an important issue with real prospects of success. The amendment can be accommodated in the trial process without adverse effects on the efficiency of the litigation or the wider interests of justice. The prospect of prejudice to the Claimants is outweighed by the risk of injustice to the Defendants if the amendment is excluded. Allowing the amendment is proportionate and in accordance with the Overriding Objective.

Court Disposition

Application allowed

Orders

  • Defendants granted permission to amend Defence to plead limitation under Peruvian law (paragraph 109) in response to both the 2017 Amendments and the Peruvian law claims generally.