KMG International NV v Chen & Anor [2020] EWHC 1203 (Comm) (14 May 2020)

KMG International NV v Chen & Anor [2020] EWHC 1203 (Comm) (14 May 2020)

The claimant's application to amend was refused because the amendment was late, inconsistent with the case previously advanced (especially for the forum challenge), lacked a good explanation for the delay, and would cause prejudice and injustice to the defendants by requiring them to address new legal issues and expert evidence on the eve of trial. The balance of justice did not favour permitting the amendment. Consequently, the application to expand the scope of expert evidence was also refused. The Veder report was ordered to be replaced with a revised report limited to the issues for which permission had been granted.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1203 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: KMG International NV; First Defendant: Melanie Anne Chen; Second Defendant: Chipper Management Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Interlocutory Applications: Amendment of Pleadings and Strike Out of Expert Evidence
Outcome
Claimant's application to amend refused; claimant's application to expand expert evidence refused; defendants' application to strike out Veder report granted to the extent that a revised report must be served.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Expert Evidence, Forum Non Conveniens, Tort Under Dutch Law, Article 6:162 Dutch Civil Code
Civil Procedure Private International Law Tort Amendment of Pleadings Expert Evidence Forum Non Conveniens Tort Under Dutch Law Article 6:162 Dutch Civil Code

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KMG International NV

Claimant

Melanie Anne Chen

First Defendant

Chipper Management Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Interlocutory Applications: Amendment of Pleadings and Strike Out of Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be permitted to amend its pleadings to advance an alternative case based on knowledge rather than intention under Article 6:162 Dutch Civil Code
  2. 2 Whether the claimant should be permitted to expand the scope of expert evidence
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' application to strike out the Veder report should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's application to amend was refused because the amendment was late, inconsistent with the case previously advanced (especially for the forum challenge), lacked a good explanation for the delay, and would cause prejudice and injustice to the defendants by requiring them to address new legal issues and expert evidence on the eve of trial. The balance of justice did not favour permitting the amendment. Consequently, the application to expand the scope of expert evidence was also refused. The Veder report was ordered to be replaced with a revised report limited to the issues for which permission had been granted.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application to amend refused; claimant's application to expand expert evidence refused; defendants' application to strike out Veder report granted to the extent that a revised report must be served.

Orders

  • Claimant's application to amend the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is refused.
  • Claimant's application to expand the scope of expert evidence is refused.