Sinclair Investment Holdings SA v Cushnie & Ors

Sinclair Investment Holdings SA v Cushnie & Ors

The lateness of the amendment application was a self-induced problem for which the claimant was responsible; permitting the amendment would require an adjournment unfair to the defendants, and the claimant had already been warned about further adjournments. The amendments sought against the Leong-Son defendants are refused.

Parties
Claimant: Sinclair Investment Holdings SA; First Defendant: Carlton Ellington Cushnie; Third Defendant: Guillaume Leong-Son; Fifth Defendant: Assets International Management Limited; Sixth Defendant: Asset Nominees Limited; Fourth Defendant: Marrlist Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Amendment Application During Trial
Outcome
Amendment application refused
Legal Topics
Quistclose Trust, Constructive Trust, Dishonest Assistance, Conspiracy, Case Management, Adjournment
Equity Trusts Civil Procedure Quistclose Trust Constructive Trust Dishonest Assistance Conspiracy Case Management +1 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sinclair Investment Holdings SA

Claimant

Carlton Ellington Cushnie

First Defendant

Guillaume Leong-Son

Third Defendant

Assets International Management Limited

Fifth Defendant

Asset Nominees Limited

Sixth Defendant

Marrlist Limited

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Amendment Application During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant should be permitted to amend particulars of claim to add new causes of action for dishonest assistance and conspiracy against certain defendants
  2. 2 Whether trial should be adjourned to allow defendants to respond to new claims

Ratio Decidendi

The lateness of the amendment application was a self-induced problem for which the claimant was responsible; permitting the amendment would require an adjournment unfair to the defendants, and the claimant had already been warned about further adjournments. The amendments sought against the Leong-Son defendants are refused.

Court Disposition

Amendment application refused

Orders

  • Amendments sought against the Leong-Son defendants are not permitted