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 proposed amendments to add the Third and Fourth Claimants were not permitted because they constituted the addition of new parties and new causes of action after the expiry of the limitation period, rather than a substitution for a party named in mistake. The amendments would significantly alter the claim and did not satisfy the requirements of Limitation Act 1980 s.35(6)(a) and CPR 19.5(3)(a).

Citation
[2007] EWHC 997 (QB)
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
Application to amend refused; application to strike out Second Claimant refused at this stage.
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 2
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 claimants after expiry of the limitation period
  2. 2 Whether the amendments constitute a substitution or addition of parties under Limitation Act 1980 s.35 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 proposed amendments to add the Third and Fourth Claimants were not permitted because they constituted the addition of new parties and new causes of action after the expiry of the limitation period, rather than a substitution for a party named in mistake. The amendments would significantly alter the claim and did not satisfy the requirements of Limitation Act 1980 s.35(6)(a) and CPR 19.5(3)(a).

Court Disposition

Application to amend refused; application to strike out Second Claimant refused at this stage.

Orders

  • Permission to amend the claim to add Third and Fourth Claimants refused.
  • Application to strike out Second Claimant refused, but Second Claimant may not advance claims at trial beyond those relating to the offer of amends procedure.