Media Trust SPA (As Trustee for the Jacaranda Trust) v BGB Weston Ltd & Ors [2023] EWHC 1491 (KB) (16 October 2023)
The court refused permission to amend the particulars of claim to introduce new causes of action because the proposed amendments constituted new claims that did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the original claim, and the limitation periods for those claims had arguably expired. The court found it was reasonably arguable that the limitation defence applied and that section 32 Limitation Act 1980 did not clearly postpone the limitation period, as the claimant (or its predecessor) could with reasonable diligence have discovered the relevant facts. Accordingly, the amendments would confer an impermissible limitation advantage and were not permitted. The strike out...
- Citation
- [2023] EWHC 1491 (KB)
- Parties
- Claimant: In Media Trust SPA (as Trustee for the Jacaranda Trust); First Defendant: BGB Weston Limited; Second Defendant: Lorenzo Gallucci; Third Defendant: Gennaro Pinto
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 16 October 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Civil (high Court, King's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Applications: Strike Out/reverse Summary Judgment and Application to Amend Particulars of Claim
- Outcome
- Application to amend particulars of claim refused; strike out application for abuse of process not granted; claim cannot proceed on amended basis.
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation of Actions, Fraud and Deceit, Conspiracy, Breach of Trust, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
In Media Trust SPA (as Trustee for the Jacaranda Trust)
Claimant
BGB Weston Limited
First Defendant
Lorenzo Gallucci
Second Defendant
Gennaro Pinto
Third Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil (high Court, King's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Applications: Strike Out/reverse Summary Judgment and Application to Amend Particulars of Claim
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant should be permitted to amend the particulars of claim to introduce new causes of action after expiry of limitation periods
- 2 Whether the new claims arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the original claim for the purposes of section 35 Limitation Act 1980 and CPR 17.4
- 3 Whether the claims are statute-barred or benefit from postponement under section 32 Limitation Act 1980 (fraud/deliberate concealment)
Ratio Decidendi
The court refused permission to amend the particulars of claim to introduce new causes of action because the proposed amendments constituted new claims that did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the original claim, and the limitation periods for those claims had arguably expired. The court found it was reasonably arguable that the limitation defence applied and that section 32 Limitation Act 1980 did not clearly postpone the limitation period, as the claimant (or its predecessor) could with reasonable diligence have discovered the relevant facts. Accordingly, the amendments would confer an impermissible limitation advantage and were not permitted. The strike out...
Court Disposition
Application to amend particulars of claim refused; strike out application for abuse of process not granted; claim cannot proceed on amended basis.
Orders
- Permission to amend particulars of claim refused.
- Claimant's application to amend dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment