Libyan Investment Authority & Ors v King & Ors

Libyan Investment Authority & Ors v King & Ors

Permission to amend to introduce new claims after expiry of the limitation period cannot be granted where the facts relied upon are not 'already in issue' on a claim previously made in the action; once the previous claims have been struck out, their facts are no longer in issue for the purposes of CPR r 17.4(2) and s.35(5) Limitation Act 1980.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Libyan Investment Authority; Claimant/respondent: LIA Advisory Services (UK) Ltd; Claimant/respondent: Maplecross Holdings Investment Co Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Roger Milner King; Defendant/appellant: International Group Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Beeson Property Investments Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Stoke Park Estates; Defendant/appellant: Charles Montgomery Merry; Defendant/appellant: Conrad Strategic Partners Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed (majority); claim dismissed. (Dissent: order should be corrected/varied and appeal dismissed.)
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation Periods, CPR R 17.4, Section 35 Limitation Act 1980, Strike Out, Summary Judgment
Civil Procedure Limitation Amendment of Pleadings Limitation Periods CPR R 17.4 Section 35 Limitation Act 1980 Strike Out Summary Judgment

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

Parties

Libyan Investment Authority

Claimant/respondent

LIA Advisory Services (UK) Ltd

Claimant/respondent

Maplecross Holdings Investment Co Ltd

Claimant/respondent

Roger Milner King

Defendant/appellant

International Group Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Beeson Property Investments Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Stoke Park Estates

Defendant/appellant

Charles Montgomery Merry

Defendant/appellant

Conrad Strategic Partners Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has power to permit amendment to introduce new claims after expiry of limitation period when previous claims have been struck out
  2. 2 Interpretation of CPR r 17.4(2) and s.35(5) Limitation Act 1980
  3. 3 Whether facts pleaded in struck out pleadings can be 'already in issue' for purposes of limitation exception

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to amend to introduce new claims after expiry of the limitation period cannot be granted where the facts relied upon are not 'already in issue' on a claim previously made in the action; once the previous claims have been struck out, their facts are no longer in issue for the purposes of CPR r 17.4(2) and s.35(5) Limitation Act 1980.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed (majority); claim dismissed. (Dissent: order should be corrected/varied and appeal dismissed.)

Orders

  • Order giving permission for the RRAPOC set aside.
  • Claim dismissed.