CNM Estates (Tolworth Tower) Limited v Simon Peter Carvill-Biggs & Anor

CNM Estates (Tolworth Tower) Limited v Simon Peter Carvill-Biggs & Anor

Relief from sanction was not required as CNM complied with the unless order by serving a draft pleading in time. The judge erred in refusing permission to amend based on perceived weakness of the claim rather than its real prospect of success. Both gross negligence and wilful misconduct amendments had a real prospect of success and should have been permitted.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: CNM Estates (Tolworth Tower) Limited; Defendant/respondent: Simon Peter Carvill-Biggs; Defendant/respondent: Freddy Khalastchi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Case Management Decisions
Outcome
Appeal allowed (but claim compromised before order made)
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Permission to Amend Pleadings, Gross Negligence, Wilful Misconduct, Case Management, Receivership
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Relief From Sanctions Permission to Amend Pleadings Gross Negligence Wilful Misconduct Case Management Receivership

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

Parties

CNM Estates (Tolworth Tower) Limited

Claimant/appellant

Simon Peter Carvill-Biggs

Defendant/respondent

Freddy Khalastchi

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Case Management Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether relief from sanction was required for permission to amend to plead gross negligence
  2. 2 Whether permission to amend to plead wilful misconduct should be granted
  3. 3 Whether proposed amendments had a real prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

Relief from sanction was not required as CNM complied with the unless order by serving a draft pleading in time. The judge erred in refusing permission to amend based on perceived weakness of the claim rather than its real prospect of success. Both gross negligence and wilful misconduct amendments had a real prospect of success and should have been permitted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed (but claim compromised before order made)

Orders

  • Permission to amend Particulars of Claim to plead gross negligence and wilful misconduct granted
  • Consent order made reflecting settlement of the claim