Clyde & Co Llp & Anor v New Look Interiors of Marlow Ltd & Anor

Clyde & Co Llp & Anor v New Look Interiors of Marlow Ltd & Anor

The proposed amendments are speculative, unsupported by evidence, insufficiently particularised, and seek to reverse the burden of proof; the Master erred in exercising discretion to allow them.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Clyde & Co LLP; Claimant/respondent: Clyde & Co (A Firm); Defendant/appellant: New Look Interiors of Marlow Limited; Defendant/appellant: Anthony Phillip Blayden
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order Granting Permission to Amend Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Appeal allowed; permission to amend particulars of claim refused.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Implied Terms, Fraud, Mistake, Negligent Misstatement, Burden of Proof, Particularity in Pleadings
Contract Law Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Implied Terms Fraud Mistake Negligent Misstatement Burden of Proof +1 more

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

Parties

Clyde & Co LLP

Claimant/respondent

Clyde & Co (A Firm)

Claimant/respondent

New Look Interiors of Marlow Limited

Defendant/appellant

Anthony Phillip Blayden

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order Granting Permission to Amend Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred in granting permission to amend particulars of claim
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments were speculative, unsupported by evidence, and insufficiently particularised
  3. 3 Whether the implied terms pleaded met the legal criteria

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendments are speculative, unsupported by evidence, insufficiently particularised, and seek to reverse the burden of proof; the Master erred in exercising discretion to allow them.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; permission to amend particulars of claim refused.

Orders

  • Claimants not permitted to amend particulars of claim as proposed.
  • Claimants may seek to plead case in a more focused and particularised manner.