Fay of London Limited v Axis Speciality Europe

Fay of London Limited v Axis Speciality Europe

Permission to amend was refused because the Defendant has a reasonably arguable defence on limitation for both the fraudulent breach of trust and other proposed claims, and the other proposed claims do not arise out of substantially the same facts as the original claim. The court declined to allow amendments on a Mastercard basis, requiring the Claimant to issue a new claim if it wishes to pursue the new causes of action.

Parties
Claimant: Fay of London Limited; First Defendant: Axis Speciality Europe SE; Second Defendant: Jirehouse (Unlimited Body Corporate); Third Defendant: Jirehouse Partners LLP; Fourth Defendant: Stephen David Jones
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Application to Amend Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Application dismissed; permission to amend refused.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation Periods, Fraudulent Breach of Trust, Professional Negligence, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Deceit, Contractual Liability
Civil Procedure Trusts and Equity Insurance Law Amendment of Pleadings Limitation Periods Fraudulent Breach of Trust Professional Negligence Breach of Fiduciary Duty +2 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 6 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fay of London Limited

Claimant

Axis Speciality Europe SE

First Defendant

Jirehouse (Unlimited Body Corporate)

Second Defendant

Jirehouse Partners LLP

Third Defendant

Stephen David Jones

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Application to Amend Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to amend the Particulars of Claim to introduce claims for fraudulent breach of trust and other causes of action
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments are statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  3. 3 Whether the new claims arise out of substantially the same facts as the original claim

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to amend was refused because the Defendant has a reasonably arguable defence on limitation for both the fraudulent breach of trust and other proposed claims, and the other proposed claims do not arise out of substantially the same facts as the original claim. The court declined to allow amendments on a Mastercard basis, requiring the Claimant to issue a new claim if it wishes to pursue the new causes of action.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; permission to amend refused.

Orders

  • Claimant refused permission to amend Particulars of Claim.
  • Claimant required to issue a new claim to pursue new causes of action.