Bing Holdings Inc & Anor v Hue-Williams

Bing Holdings Inc & Anor v Hue-Williams

The proposed amendment introduces a new cause of action in unjust enrichment, requiring assessment of the value of benefit conferred, for which there is no permission for expert evidence and insufficient time for the respondent to prepare. Allowing the amendment would require adjournment of the trial, which is not justified given the lateness and lack of good reason for delay. The application to amend is refused.

Parties
Claimant: Bing Holdings Inc; Claimant/third Party: John Chandris; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Michael Hue-Williams; Fourth Party/defendant to Part 20 Claim: Christina Chandris
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract/restitution) / Application to Amend Pleadings Before Trial
Outcome
Application to amend pleadings refused
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Quantum Meruit, Unjust Enrichment, Pre Trial Procedure
Contract Law Restitution Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Quantum Meruit Unjust Enrichment Pre Trial Procedure

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bing Holdings Inc

Claimant

John Chandris

Claimant/third Party

Michael Hue-Williams

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Christina Chandris

Fourth Party/defendant to Part 20 Claim

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract/restitution) / Application to Amend Pleadings Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to allow a late amendment to pleadings to introduce a claim in unjust enrichment/quantum meruit based on value of benefit conferred
  2. 2 Whether the amendment would cause prejudice or require adjournment of trial

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendment introduces a new cause of action in unjust enrichment, requiring assessment of the value of benefit conferred, for which there is no permission for expert evidence and insufficient time for the respondent to prepare. Allowing the amendment would require adjournment of the trial, which is not justified given the lateness and lack of good reason for delay. The application to amend is refused.

Court Disposition

Application to amend pleadings refused

Orders

  • Permission to amend pleadings to introduce new claim in unjust enrichment/quantum meruit refused
  • Trial to proceed as scheduled on 11 December 2017