Berkeley Square Holdings Ltd & Ors v Lancer Property Assets Management Ltd & Ors (Claimant amendment application) (Rev 1) [2021] EWHC 750 (Ch) (24 March 2021)

Berkeley Square Holdings Ltd & Ors v Lancer Property Assets Management Ltd & Ors (Claimant amendment application) (Rev 1) [2021] EWHC 750 (Ch) (24 March 2021)

The amendments sought by claimants are late, would cause significant prejudice and disruption to trial preparations, and claimants failed to raise authenticity issues earlier despite having opportunity. There is insufficient basis to doubt authenticity of the 2012 approval, and claimants previously admitted its authenticity. The balancing exercise under the overriding objective weighs against allowing the amendments.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 750 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Berkeley Square Holdings Limited & Others; Defendant/respondent: Lancer Property Assets Management Limited; Defendant/respondent: John Townley Kevill; Defendant/respondent: Duncan Robert Ferguson; Defendant/respondent: Andrew John Windle Lax; Defendant/respondent: Byron Howard Pull; Defendant/respondent: Lancer Property Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Civil Litigation / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Application to amend pleadings refused
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Withdrawal of Admissions, Authenticity of Documents, Overriding Objective, Disclosure, Practice Direction 14, CPR Rules
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Amendment of Pleadings Withdrawal of Admissions Authenticity of Documents Overriding Objective Disclosure Practice Direction 14 +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Berkeley Square Holdings Limited & Others

Claimant/applicant

Lancer Property Assets Management Limited

Defendant/respondent

John Townley Kevill

Defendant/respondent

Duncan Robert Ferguson

Defendant/respondent

Andrew John Windle Lax

Defendant/respondent

Byron Howard Pull

Defendant/respondent

Lancer Property Holdings Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Civil Litigation / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should claimants be permitted to amend pleadings to require defendants to prove authenticity of 'Becker authority' and '2012 approval'?
  2. 2 Should claimants be allowed to withdraw previous admission regarding authenticity of '2012 approval'?

Ratio Decidendi

The amendments sought by claimants are late, would cause significant prejudice and disruption to trial preparations, and claimants failed to raise authenticity issues earlier despite having opportunity. There is insufficient basis to doubt authenticity of the 2012 approval, and claimants previously admitted its authenticity. The balancing exercise under the overriding objective weighs against allowing the amendments.

Court Disposition

Application to amend pleadings refused

Orders

  • Claimants' application to amend particulars of claim and reply in relation to authenticity of Becker authority and 2012 approval is refused