Bank of Scotland Plc v Watson & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 6 (22 January 2013)

Bank of Scotland Plc v Watson & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 6 (22 January 2013)

The Court held that the existing Defence and Counterclaim did not adequately plead dishonest assistance or any other viable cause of action against the bank. The proposed amendments introduced new claims and causes of action that did not arise from the same or substantially the same facts as the original pleading. Accordingly, the Defence and Counterclaim should be struck out, and permission to amend was refused. Mrs Watson must bring any new claims in separate proceedings, subject to limitation.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 6
Parties
Claimant Appellant: Bank of Scotland PLC; Defendant Respondent: Elizabeth Jean Watson; Defendant Respondent: Craig Miles Watson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From County Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Defence and Counterclaim struck out; permission to amend refused.
Legal Topics
Dishonest Assistance, Breach of Trust, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Limitation of Actions, Mortgage Enforcement, Summary Judgment, Abuse of Process
Banking Law Civil Procedure Trusts Law Dishonest Assistance Breach of Trust Fraudulent Misrepresentation Limitation of Actions Mortgage Enforcement +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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bank of Scotland PLC

Claimant Appellant

Elizabeth Jean Watson

Defendant Respondent

Craig Miles Watson

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defence and Counterclaim should be struck out as an abuse of process or for disclosing no reasonable grounds for defending the claim
  2. 2 Whether Mrs Watson should be permitted to amend her Defence and Counterclaim to advance new claims
  3. 3 Whether the proposed amendments constitute new claims and if so, whether they arise from the same or substantially the same facts as the original claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the existing Defence and Counterclaim did not adequately plead dishonest assistance or any other viable cause of action against the bank. The proposed amendments introduced new claims and causes of action that did not arise from the same or substantially the same facts as the original pleading. Accordingly, the Defence and Counterclaim should be struck out, and permission to amend was refused. Mrs Watson must bring any new claims in separate proceedings, subject to limitation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Defence and Counterclaim struck out; permission to amend refused.

Orders

  • Defence and Counterclaim struck out
  • Permission to amend Defence and Counterclaim refused