Bing Holdings Inc & Anor v Hue-Williams [2017] EWHC 3149 (QB) (05 December 2017)

Bing Holdings Inc & Anor v Hue-Williams [2017] EWHC 3149 (QB) (05 December 2017)

Permission to amend was refused because the amendment introduced a new cause of action in unjust enrichment requiring assessment of the value of benefit to the respondent, for which there was no time to prepare evidence or pleadings before trial, and no good reason for the lateness of the application was provided.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 3149 (QB)
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
High Court Civil Claim With Part 20 Proceedings / Application to Amend Pleadings at Pre Trial Review
Outcome
Application to amend refused
Legal Topics
Quantum Meruit, Unjust Enrichment, Amendment of Pleadings, Pre Trial Procedure
Contract Law Restitution Civil Procedure Quantum Meruit Unjust Enrichment Amendment of Pleadings 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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

High Court Civil Claim With Part 20 Proceedings / Application to Amend Pleadings at Pre Trial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to permit 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

Permission to amend was refused because the amendment introduced a new cause of action in unjust enrichment requiring assessment of the value of benefit to the respondent, for which there was no time to prepare evidence or pleadings before trial, and no good reason for the lateness of the application was provided.

Court Disposition

Application to amend refused

Orders

  • Permission to amend pleadings to introduce new unjust enrichment claim refused
  • Trial to proceed as scheduled