In Media Trust SpA v BGB Weston Ltd & OrsE [2024] EWHC 3277 (KB) (19 December 2024)

In Media Trust SpA v BGB Weston Ltd & OrsE [2024] EWHC 3277 (KB) (19 December 2024)

The Master misapplied the law by treating the Respondent's reliance on the wrongdoer's reassurances as sufficient to avoid the effect of the limitation trigger, and by summarily determining disputed factual issues relevant to limitation and agency. The correct test is whether the Respondent could with reasonable diligence have discovered the fraud or concealment, not whether it was reasonable for the Respondent to rely on the wrongdoer. On the facts, the Respondent could have discovered the fraud in 2015 by simple enquiry, and the limitation defence was at least reasonably arguable. Permission to amend should have been refused.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 3277 (KB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: IN MEDIA TRUST SPA (as Trustee for the Jacaranda Trust); First Defendant/appellant: BGB WESTON LIMITED; Second Defendant/appellant: Lorenzo Gallucci; Third Defendant/appellant: Gennaro Pinto
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Against Order Granting Permission to Amend Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation of Actions, Fraud and Concealment, Constructive Knowledge, Agency, Summary Determination
Civil Procedure Trusts and Equity Contract Law Amendment of Pleadings Limitation of Actions Fraud and Concealment Constructive Knowledge Agency +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IN MEDIA TRUST SPA (as Trustee for the Jacaranda Trust)

Claimant/respondent

BGB WESTON LIMITED

First Defendant/appellant

Lorenzo Gallucci

Second Defendant/appellant

Gennaro Pinto

Third Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Against Order Granting Permission to Amend Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred in granting permission to amend the Particulars of Claim to include new claims allegedly brought outside the limitation period
  2. 2 Whether section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 applied to postpone the limitation period due to alleged fraud or concealment
  3. 3 Whether the Master was wrong to summarily determine factual disputes relevant to limitation and agency

Ratio Decidendi

The Master misapplied the law by treating the Respondent's reliance on the wrongdoer's reassurances as sufficient to avoid the effect of the limitation trigger, and by summarily determining disputed factual issues relevant to limitation and agency. The correct test is whether the Respondent could with reasonable diligence have discovered the fraud or concealment, not whether it was reasonable for the Respondent to rely on the wrongdoer. On the facts, the Respondent could have discovered the fraud in 2015 by simple enquiry, and the limitation defence was at least reasonably arguable. Permission to amend should have been refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of Master Dagnall dated 25 July 2023 granting permission to amend Particulars of Claim set aside
  • Application for permission to amend Particulars of Claim refused