Libyan Investment Authority & Ors v King & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 1690 (14 December 2020)

Libyan Investment Authority & Ors v King & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 1690 (14 December 2020)

The court has no power under CPR r 17.4 to permit amendment to introduce new claims after the limitation period where all existing claims have been struck out, because there are no facts 'already in issue' as required by s.35(5)(a) Limitation Act 1980; facts in a struck out pleading are not in issue at the time of the amendment application.

Citation
[2020] EWCA Civ 1690
Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Libyan Investment Authority; Claimant / Respondent: LIA Advisory Services (UK) Ltd (formerly known as Dalia Advisory Ltd); Claimant / Respondent: Maplecross Holdings Investment Co Ltd; Defendant / Appellant: Roger Milner King; Defendant / Appellant: International Group Ltd; Defendant / Appellant: Beeson Property Investments Ltd; Defendant / Appellant: Stoke Park Estates (formerly known as Beeson Investments); Defendant / Appellant: Charles Montgomery Merry; Defendant / Appellant: Conrad Strategic Partners Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Regarding Amendment of Pleadings After Limitation Period
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation Act 1980 Section 35, CPR R 17.4, Striking Out Pleadings, Jurisdiction to Permit New Claims After Limitation, Interpretation of Procedural Rules
Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Amendment of Pleadings Limitation Act 1980 Section 35 CPR R 17.4 Striking Out Pleadings Jurisdiction to Permit New Claims After Limitation Interpretation of Procedural Rules

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Libyan Investment Authority

Claimant / Respondent

LIA Advisory Services (UK) Ltd (formerly known as Dalia Advisory Ltd)

Claimant / Respondent

Maplecross Holdings Investment Co Ltd

Claimant / Respondent

Roger Milner King

Defendant / Appellant

International Group Ltd

Defendant / Appellant

Beeson Property Investments Ltd

Defendant / Appellant

Stoke Park Estates (formerly known as Beeson Investments)

Defendant / Appellant

Charles Montgomery Merry

Defendant / Appellant

Conrad Strategic Partners Ltd

Defendant / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Regarding Amendment of Pleadings After Limitation Period

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has power under CPR r 17.4 to permit amendment to introduce new claims after the limitation period when all existing claims have been struck out
  2. 2 Whether facts in a struck out pleading can be 'in issue' for the purpose of CPR r 17.4 and s.35(5)(a) Limitation Act 1980

Ratio Decidendi

The court has no power under CPR r 17.4 to permit amendment to introduce new claims after the limitation period where all existing claims have been struck out, because there are no facts 'already in issue' as required by s.35(5)(a) Limitation Act 1980; facts in a struck out pleading are not in issue at the time of the amendment application.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court permitting amendment after limitation period set aside
  • Application to amend to introduce new claims after limitation period refused