Carey Group Plc & Ors v AIB Group (UK) Plc & Anor (No 2) [2011] EWHC 594 (Ch) (16 March 2011)

Carey Group Plc & Ors v AIB Group (UK) Plc & Anor (No 2) [2011] EWHC 594 (Ch) (16 March 2011)

The application to amend was refused because the new case advanced by the claimants was inherently implausible, inconsistent with their prior pleadings and evidence, unsupported by contemporaneous documentation, and lacked a credible explanation for the change in position. Even if the new evidence were accepted at...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 594 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Carey Group Plc; Claimant: PJ Carey (Contractors) Limited; Claimant: PJ Carey Plant Hire (Oval) Limited; Claimant: Seneca Environmental Solutions Limited; Defendant: AIB Group (UK) Plc; Defendant: National Asset Management Agency
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Permission to Amend Particulars of Claim Following Strike Out Judgment
Outcome
Application for permission to amend refused; Particulars of Claim and claim struck out with costs.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Collateral Contract, Rectification, Promissory Estoppel, Entire Agreement Clauses, Summary Judgment Principles
Contract Law Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Collateral Contract Rectification Promissory Estoppel Entire Agreement Clauses Summary Judgment Principles

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carey Group Plc

Claimant

PJ Carey (Contractors) Limited

Claimant

PJ Carey Plant Hire (Oval) Limited

Claimant

Seneca Environmental Solutions Limited

Claimant

AIB Group (UK) Plc

Defendant

National Asset Management Agency

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Permission to Amend Particulars of Claim Following Strike Out Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to amend the Particulars of Claim to allege an oral collateral contract, rectification, and promissory estoppel inconsistent with the written Facility Agreement
  2. 2 Whether the new case advanced by the claimants has a real prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The application to amend was refused because the new case advanced by the claimants was inherently implausible, inconsistent with their prior pleadings and evidence, unsupported by contemporaneous documentation, and lacked a credible explanation for the change in position. Even if the new evidence were accepted at face value, the legal obstacles to rectification, collateral contract, and estoppel were insurmountable given the terms of the Facility Agreement and the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the inconsistency.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to amend refused; Particulars of Claim and claim struck out with costs.

Orders

  • Refusal of permission to amend Particulars of Claim
  • Strike-out of Particulars of Claim and the claim