Criterion Buildings Ltd v McKinsey & Company, Inc. United Kingdom & Anor [2020] EWHC 2552 (Ch) (28 September 2020)

Criterion Buildings Ltd v McKinsey & Company, Inc. United Kingdom & Anor [2020] EWHC 2552 (Ch) (28 September 2020)

The application to re-amend the defence was refused because it was late, without good reason for the delay, would cause undue and disproportionate prejudice to the claimant in the short time before trial, and the amounts at stake were minor relative to the overall claim. The overriding objective required refusal to ensure fairness and proportionality.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2552 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Criterion Buildings Limited; First Defendant/applicant: McKinsey & Company, Inc. United Kingdom; Second Defendant/applicant: McKinsey & Company Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Service Charge Dispute (commercial Lease) / Pre Trial Review; Application to Re Amend Defence
Outcome
Application to re-amend defence refused in its entirety.
Legal Topics
Service Charges, Lease Interpretation, Amendment of Pleadings, Unjust Enrichment, Estoppel, Overriding Objective
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Service Charges Lease Interpretation Amendment of Pleadings Unjust Enrichment Estoppel +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Criterion Buildings Limited

Claimant/respondent

McKinsey & Company, Inc. United Kingdom

First Defendant/applicant

McKinsey & Company Inc

Second Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Service Charge Dispute (commercial Lease) / Pre Trial Review; Application to Re Amend Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants should be permitted to re-amend their defence to raise (1) the commission issue and (2) the works issue shortly before trial

Ratio Decidendi

The application to re-amend the defence was refused because it was late, without good reason for the delay, would cause undue and disproportionate prejudice to the claimant in the short time before trial, and the amounts at stake were minor relative to the overall claim. The overriding objective required refusal to ensure fairness and proportionality.

Court Disposition

Application to re-amend defence refused in its entirety.

Orders

  • Defendants' application to re-amend defence refused.
  • Claimant awarded costs of the application, assessed summarily at the hearing.