Carey Group Plc & Ors v AIB Group (UK) Plc & Anor (No 2)

Carey Group Plc & Ors v AIB Group (UK) Plc & Anor (No 2)

The claimants' new case based on alleged oral assurances is inherently implausible, inconsistent with their prior pleadings and evidence, unsupported by contemporaneous documentation, and legally unsustainable due to the Facility Agreement's prohibition on oral variation and the requirements for promissory estoppel. Permission to amend is refused.

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 Pleadings Following Strike Out Judgment
Outcome
Permission to amend Particulars of Claim refused; claim and Particulars of Claim struck out with costs.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Collateral Contract, Rectification, Promissory Estoppel, Strike Out Applications
Contract Law Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Collateral Contract Rectification Promissory Estoppel Strike Out Applications

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 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 Pleadings Following Strike Out Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants should be granted permission to amend Particulars of Claim after strike-out
  2. 2 Whether oral assurances alleged by claimants can support claims for collateral contract, rectification, or promissory estoppel

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' new case based on alleged oral assurances is inherently implausible, inconsistent with their prior pleadings and evidence, unsupported by contemporaneous documentation, and legally unsustainable due to the Facility Agreement's prohibition on oral variation and the requirements for promissory estoppel. Permission to amend is refused.

Court Disposition

Permission to amend Particulars of Claim refused; claim and Particulars of Claim struck out with costs.

Orders

  • Particulars of Claim struck out
  • Claim struck out