Giles v Rhind & Anor

Giles v Rhind & Anor

Permission to amend the particulars of claim to allege execution of the deed in 1994, alternatively 1992, is granted because the limitation period was postponed under section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 due to deliberate concealment, and the amendments are not statute-barred. However, the proposed new claim regarding the Paddock should proceed by way of a new claim, not by amendment in these proceedings.

Parties
Claimant: Edward John Giles; First Defendant: Roderick Middleton Rhind; Second Defendant: Caroline Bridget Towers Rhind
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Chancery / Application for Permission to Amend Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Permission to amend granted in part; new claim regarding the Paddock to proceed separately.
Legal Topics
Transaction at Undervalue, Sham Transaction, Limitation Period, Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986, Amendment of Pleadings
Insolvency Property Law Civil Procedure Transaction at Undervalue Sham Transaction Limitation Period Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986 Amendment of Pleadings

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

Parties

Edward John Giles

Claimant

Roderick Middleton Rhind

First Defendant

Caroline Bridget Towers Rhind

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Chancery / Application for Permission to Amend Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to amend the particulars of claim to allege the deed was executed in 1994 or 1992 instead of 1998
  2. 2 Whether the claim under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 is statute-barred by limitation
  3. 3 Whether section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 postpones the limitation period due to deliberate concealment

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to amend the particulars of claim to allege execution of the deed in 1994, alternatively 1992, is granted because the limitation period was postponed under section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 due to deliberate concealment, and the amendments are not statute-barred. However, the proposed new claim regarding the Paddock should proceed by way of a new claim, not by amendment in these proceedings.

Court Disposition

Permission to amend granted in part; new claim regarding the Paddock to proceed separately.

Orders

  • Permission granted to amend particulars of claim to allege execution of the deed in 1994, alternatively 1992.
  • Permission to introduce the Paddock claim by amendment refused; to proceed as a new claim.