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 in defamation was refused because the proposed claim did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as existing claims, was brought after the limitation period, and there was no equitable basis to disapply the limitation period under s 32A of the Limitation Act 1980. Permission to amend the existing claim regarding responsibility for publication was granted in principle, subject to modifications to reflect the court's decision. Defendant's applications to serve supplementary evidence and amend Defence were granted to align pleadings and evidence with the true position, causing no irremediable prejudice to the claimant.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1218 (QB)
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, Responsibility for Publication, Serious Harm to Reputation
Defamation Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Limitation Period Public Interest Defence Responsibility for Publication 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 14 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 to add a new cause of action in defamation 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 in defamation was refused because the proposed claim did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as existing claims, was brought after the limitation period, and there was no equitable basis to disapply the limitation period under s 32A of the Limitation Act 1980. Permission to amend the existing claim regarding responsibility for publication was granted in principle, subject to modifications to reflect the court's decision. Defendant's applications to serve supplementary evidence and amend Defence were granted to align pleadings and evidence with the true position, causing no irremediable prejudice to the claimant.

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 paragraph 10 of Particulars of Claim granted in principle, subject to modifications.