Adelson & Anor v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2007] EWHC 997 (QB) (01 May 2007)

Adelson & Anor v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2007] EWHC 997 (QB) (01 May 2007)

The court held that the omission of the Third and Fourth Claimants was a mistake within the meaning of the Limitation Act 1980 and CPR 19.5, and that the amendments to add them as claimants were necessary for the determination of the original action. The amendments did not significantly alter the substance of the claim, and thus substitution was permitted. The application to strike out the Second Claimant was refused, as it remained a necessary party for the completion of the offer of amends procedure. The court allowed the amendments to the aggravated damages plea only to the extent not relating to matters already resolved by offer of amends.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 997
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 Action / Pre Trial Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Claimants' application to amend allowed in respect of adding Third and Fourth Claimants; amendments to aggravated damages allowed in part; Defendant's application to strike out Second Claimant refused.
Legal Topics
Libel, Amendment of Pleadings, Addition/substitution of Parties, Limitation Period, Aggravated Damages
Media Law Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Amendment of Pleadings Addition/substitution of Parties Limitation Period Aggravated Damages

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 12 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 Action / Pre Trial Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants should be permitted to amend the claim to add new corporate claimants after expiry of the limitation period
  2. 2 Whether the amendments constitute substitution or addition of parties under Limitation Act 1980 and CPR 19.5
  3. 3 Whether the claim of the Second Claimant should be struck out for lack of cause of action

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the omission of the Third and Fourth Claimants was a mistake within the meaning of the Limitation Act 1980 and CPR 19.5, and that the amendments to add them as claimants were necessary for the determination of the original action. The amendments did not significantly alter the substance of the claim, and thus substitution was permitted. The application to strike out the Second Claimant was refused, as it remained a necessary party for the completion of the offer of amends procedure. The court allowed the amendments to the aggravated damages plea only to the extent not relating to matters already resolved by offer of amends.

Court Disposition

Claimants' application to amend allowed in respect of adding Third and Fourth Claimants; amendments to aggravated damages allowed in part; Defendant's application to strike out Second Claimant refused.

Orders

  • Permission granted to amend the claim to add Las Vegas Sands, LLC and Las Vegas Sands (UK) Ltd as claimants.
  • Permission granted to amend aggravated damages plea except as regards matters covered by offer of amends.