Investment Bank PSC v Ahmad Mohammad El-Husseini & Ors

Investment Bank PSC v Ahmad Mohammad El-Husseini & Ors

Permission to make the Proposed Amendments is refused because they are very late, would require extensive further procedural steps that cannot be completed before trial, would prejudice fair trial preparation, and would necessitate adjournment of the trial. Additionally, many amendments are arguably time-barred, do not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as existing claims, and are not properly pleaded or particularised. The Bank failed to discharge the heavy burden required for late amendments, and the interests of justice and the overriding objective require refusal.

Parties
Claimant: Invest Bank P. S. C.; First Defendant: Ahmad Mohammad El-Husseini; Second Defendant: Mohammed Ahmad El-Husseiny; Third Defendant: Alexander Ahmad El-Husseiny; Fourth Defendant: Ziad Ahmad El-Husseiny; Fifth Defendant: Ramzy Ahmad El-Husseiny; Sixth Defendant: Joan Eva Henry; Seventh Defendant: Virtue Trustees (Switzerland) A. G.; Eighth Defendant: Global Green Development Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Civil Claim / Pre Trial Review; Ruling on Amendment Application
Outcome
Application to amend Particulars of Claim dismissed as regards Proposed Amendments.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986, Limitation Act 1980, Late Amendments, Pleading Fraud and Dishonesty
Civil Procedure Insolvency Limitation of Actions Amendment of Pleadings Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986 Limitation Act 1980 Late Amendments Pleading Fraud and Dishonesty

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

Parties

Invest Bank P. S. C.

Claimant

Ahmad Mohammad El-Husseini

First Defendant

Mohammed Ahmad El-Husseiny

Second Defendant

Alexander Ahmad El-Husseiny

Third Defendant

Ziad Ahmad El-Husseiny

Fourth Defendant

Ramzy Ahmad El-Husseiny

Fifth Defendant

Joan Eva Henry

Sixth Defendant

Virtue Trustees (Switzerland) A. G.

Seventh Defendant

Global Green Development Limited

Eighth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Civil Claim / Pre Trial Review; Ruling on Amendment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be permitted to make very late amendments to its Particulars of Claim
  2. 2 Whether proposed amendments are time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  3. 3 Whether amendments are properly pleaded and particularised

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to make the Proposed Amendments is refused because they are very late, would require extensive further procedural steps that cannot be completed before trial, would prejudice fair trial preparation, and would necessitate adjournment of the trial. Additionally, many amendments are arguably time-barred, do not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as existing claims, and are not properly pleaded or particularised. The Bank failed to discharge the heavy burden required for late amendments, and the interests of justice and the overriding objective require refusal.

Court Disposition

Application to amend Particulars of Claim dismissed as regards Proposed Amendments.

Orders

  • Permission to make Proposed Amendments refused.
  • Directions to be given in PTR for amendments consented to and those relating to D7.