Hague Plant Ltd v Hague & Ors [2018] EWHC 2517 (Ch) (11 October 2018)

Hague Plant Ltd v Hague & Ors [2018] EWHC 2517 (Ch) (11 October 2018)

The order granting permission to amend was mandatory, requiring the claimant to serve a pleading in the permitted form. The claimant's failure to do so, and its attempt to revert to the previous pleading, was a breach of the order. The claimant was not entitled to elect between the permitted amendments and the previous pleading. The breach was not remedied by the claimant's conduct, and the obligation to comply with the order subsisted.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2517 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Hague Plant Limited; First Defendant: Martin Hartley Hague; Second Defendant: Jean Angela Hague; Third Defendant: MHH Contracting Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Company/commercial / Post Interlocutory, Applications for Relief From Sanctions and Strike Out
Outcome
Claim struck out for breach of mandatory order; relief from sanctions refused except for technical statement of truth defect.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Relief From Sanctions, Strike Out Applications, Directors' Duties, Dishonest Assistance, Procedural Compliance
Company Law Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Relief From Sanctions Strike Out Applications Directors' Duties Dishonest Assistance Procedural Compliance

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

Parties

Hague Plant Limited

Claimant

Martin Hartley Hague

First Defendant

Jean Angela Hague

Second Defendant

MHH Contracting Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Company/commercial / Post Interlocutory, Applications for Relief From Sanctions and Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was obliged to serve amended particulars of claim in the form permitted by the court
  2. 2 Whether the claimant could revert to its previous pleading after failing to comply with the amendment order
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's replies to a Part 18 Request were compliant

Ratio Decidendi

The order granting permission to amend was mandatory, requiring the claimant to serve a pleading in the permitted form. The claimant's failure to do so, and its attempt to revert to the previous pleading, was a breach of the order. The claimant was not entitled to elect between the permitted amendments and the previous pleading. The breach was not remedied by the claimant's conduct, and the obligation to comply with the order subsisted.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out for breach of mandatory order; relief from sanctions refused except for technical statement of truth defect.

Orders

  • Claimant's claim struck out for failure to comply with the Second Order.
  • Claimant to pay defendants' costs of the action.