P & O Nedlloyd BV v Arab Metals Co & Ors

P & O Nedlloyd BV v Arab Metals Co & Ors

The proposed amendments arise out of the same facts as originally pleaded, specifically the fax of 27 May 1998 and the pleaded agency of W. M. Martin & Co. No new facts are relied upon. There is no real prejudice to the defendants, and it would be wrong in principle to penalise the claimant for not pleading every alternative basis at the outset. The court should exercise its discretion to allow the amendments.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: P & O Nedlloyd BV; Defendant/respondent: Arab Metals Co; Defendant/respondent: Stena Trading AB; Defendant/respondent: Ireland Alloys Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Commercial Court (queen’s Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation of Actions, Bills of Lading, Carriage of Goods by Sea, Agency
Civil Procedure Contract Law Amendment of Pleadings Limitation of Actions Bills of Lading Carriage of Goods by Sea Agency

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P & O Nedlloyd BV

Claimant/appellant

Arab Metals Co

Defendant/respondent

Stena Trading AB

Defendant/respondent

Ireland Alloys Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Commercial Court (queen’s Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be allowed to amend particulars of claim to raise new causes of action alleged to be time barred
  2. 2 Whether the new claims arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the original claim under CPR 17.4(2)
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to allow the amendment

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendments arise out of the same facts as originally pleaded, specifically the fax of 27 May 1998 and the pleaded agency of W. M. Martin & Co. No new facts are relied upon. There is no real prejudice to the defendants, and it would be wrong in principle to penalise the claimant for not pleading every alternative basis at the outset. The court should exercise its discretion to allow the amendments.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Leave to amend particulars of claim granted