Economou v De Freitas [2016] EWHC 1218 (QB) (25 May 2016)

Economou v De Freitas [2016] EWHC 1218 (QB) (25 May 2016)

Permission to amend to add a new cause of action was refused because the new claim did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the existing claims, was statute-barred, and there were no equitable grounds to disapply the limitation period. Permission to amend the existing claim regarding responsibility for publication was granted in principle, subject to modifications. Defendant's applications to serve supplementary evidence and amend Defence were granted to align pleadings with evidence and avoid prejudice.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1218
Parties
Claimant: Alexander Economou; Defendant: David de Freitas
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Defamation Action / Pre Trial Review; Applications to Amend Pleadings and Serve Further Evidence
Outcome
Claimant's application to amend to add new cause of action refused; application to amend existing claim granted in principle with modifications. Defendant's applications to serve supplementary statement and amend Defence granted.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation Period, Public Interest Defence, Serious Harm to Reputation
Defamation Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Limitation Period Public Interest Defence Serious Harm to Reputation

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Economou

Claimant

David de Freitas

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation Action / Pre Trial Review; Applications to Amend Pleadings and Serve Further Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to permit amendment of Particulars of Claim to add a new cause of action after expiry of limitation period
  2. 2 Whether to permit amendment of existing claim regarding responsibility for publication
  3. 3 Whether to permit defendant to serve supplementary witness statement and amend Defence

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to amend to add a new cause of action was refused because the new claim did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the existing claims, was statute-barred, and there were no equitable grounds to disapply the limitation period. Permission to amend the existing claim regarding responsibility for publication was granted in principle, subject to modifications. Defendant's applications to serve supplementary evidence and amend Defence were granted to align pleadings with evidence and avoid prejudice.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application to amend to add new cause of action refused; application to amend existing claim granted in principle with modifications. Defendant's applications to serve supplementary statement and amend Defence granted.

Orders

  • Permission to amend Particulars of Claim to add new cause of action refused.
  • Permission to amend existing claim regarding responsibility for publication granted in principle, subject to modifications.