Criterion Buildings Ltd v McKinsey & Company, Inc. United Kingdom & Anor

Criterion Buildings Ltd v McKinsey & Company, Inc. United Kingdom & Anor

The application to re-amend the defence was late without good reason, would cause undue pressure and disproportionate work for the claimant shortly before trial, and the amounts at stake are relatively insignificant compared to the overall claim. The interests of justice and the overriding objective require refusal of the application.

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
Civil (service Charge Dispute) / Interlocutory Application (application to Re Amend Defence)
Outcome
Application to re-amend defence refused.
Legal Topics
Service Charges, Lease Interpretation, Amendment of Pleadings, Unjust Enrichment, Estoppel
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Civil Procedure Service Charges Lease Interpretation Amendment of Pleadings Unjust Enrichment Estoppel

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 3 Authorities cited 9 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

Civil (service Charge Dispute) / Interlocutory Application (application to Re Amend Defence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants should be granted permission to re-amend their defence to add the commission issue and the works issue.

Ratio Decidendi

The application to re-amend the defence was late without good reason, would cause undue pressure and disproportionate work for the claimant shortly before trial, and the amounts at stake are relatively insignificant compared to the overall claim. The interests of justice and the overriding objective require refusal of the application.

Court Disposition

Application to re-amend defence refused.

Orders

  • Defendants' application to re-amend their defence is refused in its entirety.
  • Claimant is entitled to its costs of the application, assessed summarily at the hearing.