Kruger Tissue (Manufacturing) Ltd v QPS Consultants Ltd [1999] EWCA Civ 3016 (01 July 1999)

Kruger Tissue (Manufacturing) Ltd v QPS Consultants Ltd [1999] EWCA Civ 3016 (01 July 1999)

It is arguable that the judge erred in law or exceeded his discretion in striking out parts of the defence and counterclaim for inadequate compliance with an unless order, particularly regarding particulars of future loss of profit and documents not in the applicant's possession. However, the judge properly exercised discretion in refusing amendments relating to defects in the effluent plant due to lack of supporting evidence and risk of prejudice to the claimant.

Citation
[1999] EWCA Civ 3016
Parties
Applicant/defendant: Kruger Tissue (Manufacturing) Ltd; Respondent/claimant: QPS Consultants Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal From Order of Technology and Construction Court
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted on grounds 1, 2, and 3; application on ground 4 (amendments relating to effluent plant defects) refused.
Legal Topics
Unless Orders, Striking Out Pleadings, Particulars of Claim and Defence, Amendment of Pleadings, Exercise of Judicial Discretion
Civil Procedure Construction Law Unless Orders Striking Out Pleadings Particulars of Claim and Defence Amendment of Pleadings Exercise of Judicial Discretion

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kruger Tissue (Manufacturing) Ltd

Applicant/defendant

QPS Consultants Limited

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal From Order of Technology and Construction Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in striking out parts of the defence and counterclaim for inadequate compliance with an unless order
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in requiring further particulars of future loss of profit
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in refusing permission to amend the schedule to the defence and counterclaim

Ratio Decidendi

It is arguable that the judge erred in law or exceeded his discretion in striking out parts of the defence and counterclaim for inadequate compliance with an unless order, particularly regarding particulars of future loss of profit and documents not in the applicant's possession. However, the judge properly exercised discretion in refusing amendments relating to defects in the effluent plant due to lack of supporting evidence and risk of prejudice to the claimant.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted on grounds 1, 2, and 3; application on ground 4 (amendments relating to effluent plant defects) refused.

Orders

  • Agreed minute of order to be lodged with the Civil Appeal Office.
  • Claimant's costs in the appeal.