Mercer Limited & Anor v Ballinger & Anor

Mercer Limited & Anor v Ballinger & Anor

The court held that the burden lies on the claimant to show that the defendant does not have a reasonably arguable limitation defence when seeking to amend pleadings to add new claims after expiry of the limitation period. The proposed amendments relating to the 2002 valuations (Category 4 and 5(i)) did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the original claims and would require new factual investigations. The judge below erred in permitting those amendments. The Category 5(ii) amendments also introduced new factual enquiries and were correctly refused.

Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Mercer Limited; Appellant / Defendant: Sedgwick Noble Lowndes Limited; Respondent / Claimant: Leslie Francis Ballinger; Respondent / Claimant: Nosko Trustees Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Interlocutory Application to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation Period, Professional Negligence, Pension Scheme Administration, Burden of Proof in Limitation Applications
Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Professional Negligence Amendment of Pleadings Limitation Period Pension Scheme Administration Burden of Proof in Limitation Applications

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mercer Limited

Appellant / Defendant

Sedgwick Noble Lowndes Limited

Appellant / Defendant

Leslie Francis Ballinger

Respondent / Claimant

Nosko Trustees Limited

Respondent / Claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Interlocutory Application to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed amendments to the Particulars of Claim are time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether the new claims arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as those already in issue
  3. 3 On whom lies the burden of persuasion in limitation disputes at the amendment stage

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the burden lies on the claimant to show that the defendant does not have a reasonably arguable limitation defence when seeking to amend pleadings to add new claims after expiry of the limitation period. The proposed amendments relating to the 2002 valuations (Category 4 and 5(i)) did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the original claims and would require new factual investigations. The judge below erred in permitting those amendments. The Category 5(ii) amendments also introduced new factual enquiries and were correctly refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Permission to amend to add claims relating to the 2002 valuations (Category 4 and 5(i)) refused.
  • Cross-appeal regarding Category 5(ii) amendments dismissed.