Adelson & Anor v Associated Newspapers Ltd

Adelson & Anor v Associated Newspapers Ltd

The application to amend to add the Third and Fourth Claimants is refused for lack of jurisdiction, as the requirements for substitution under Limitation Act 1980 s.35(6) and CPR 19.5(3)(a) are not met; the amendments would amount to addition of new claims, not substitution. The application to amend the claim for...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Sheldon Gary Adelson; Claimant: Las Vegas Sands Corp; Defendant: Associated Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Libel / Interlocutory Application Ruling
Outcome
Claimants' applications to amend refused except where unopposed; Defendant's application to strike out refused.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Joinder of Parties, Aggravated Damages, Limitation Period, Corporate Defamation
Defamation Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Joinder of Parties Aggravated Damages Limitation Period Corporate Defamation

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sheldon Gary Adelson

Claimant

Las Vegas Sands Corp

Claimant

Associated Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel / Interlocutory Application Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to amend the claim to add new claimants after expiry of limitation period
  2. 2 Whether the amendments to aggravated damages should be allowed
  3. 3 Whether the claim of the Second Claimant should be struck out as disclosing no cause of action

Ratio Decidendi

The application to amend to add the Third and Fourth Claimants is refused for lack of jurisdiction, as the requirements for substitution under Limitation Act 1980 s.35(6) and CPR 19.5(3)(a) are not met; the amendments would amount to addition of new claims, not substitution. The application to amend the claim for aggravated damages is refused as disproportionate, late, and in part impermissible due to prior acceptance of an offer of amends. The Defendant's application to strike out the Second Claimant is refused at this stage, as it is not clear the claim is unarguable.

Court Disposition

Claimants' applications to amend refused except where unopposed; Defendant's application to strike out refused.

Orders

  • Claimants' applications for permission to amend are all refused except where unopposed, but Claimant may re-apply in respect of para 6.2A(2).
  • Defendant's application to strike out is refused.