Frasers Group Plc v Saxo Bank A/S & Anor [2024] EWHC 55 (Comm) (04 January 2024)

Frasers Group Plc v Saxo Bank A/S & Anor [2024] EWHC 55 (Comm) (04 January 2024)

Permission to amend was granted because the proposed amendments were late but not very late, were sufficiently particularised, passed the threshold merits test, and the necessary expert evidence fell within the scope of the existing consent order. The balance of prejudice favoured allowing the amendments, as the disruption to the claimant was outweighed by the prejudice to the defendant if not permitted to plead the points.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 55 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Frasers Group PLC; First Defendant: Saxo Bank A/S; Second Defendant: Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Application for Permission to Amend Defence Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application for permission to amend defence granted; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Mitigation of Loss, Expert Evidence, Costs Assessment
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Amendment of Pleadings Mitigation of Loss Expert Evidence Costs Assessment

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 1 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frasers Group PLC

Claimant

Saxo Bank A/S

First Defendant

Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Application for Permission to Amend Defence Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Morgan Stanley should be permitted to amend its defence to plead two new points relevant to quantum and mitigation of loss
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments require expert evidence outside the scope of existing orders
  3. 3 Whether the timing of the application justifies refusal on grounds of lateness or prejudice

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to amend was granted because the proposed amendments were late but not very late, were sufficiently particularised, passed the threshold merits test, and the necessary expert evidence fell within the scope of the existing consent order. The balance of prejudice favoured allowing the amendments, as the disruption to the claimant was outweighed by the prejudice to the defendant if not permitted to plead the points.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to amend defence granted; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Permission granted to Morgan Stanley to amend its defence as sought.
  • Claimant to pay the costs of and occasioned by the application for permission to amend.