Economou v De Freitas

Economou v De Freitas

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 and was outside the limitation period. There was no equitable basis to disapply the limitation period due to unexplained delay and prejudice to the defendant. Permission to amend the existing claim regarding responsibility for publication was granted in principle, subject to modifications. The defendant was allowed to serve a supplementary statement and amend the Defence to correct errors and clarify his position.

Parties
Claimant: Alexander Economou; Defendant: David de Freitas
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Pre Trial Review; Applications to Amend Pleadings and Serve Further Evidence
Outcome
Claimant's application to add a new cause of action refused; application to amend existing claim granted in principle with modifications; defendant's applications granted.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation Period, Public Interest Defence, Responsibility for Publication, Serious Harm to Reputation
Defamation Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions 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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Economou

Claimant

David de Freitas

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant permission to amend the Particulars of Claim to add a new cause of action after expiry of the limitation period
  2. 2 Whether to allow amendment of an existing claim regarding responsibility for publication
  3. 3 Whether to allow the defendant to serve a supplementary witness statement and amend the 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 and was outside the limitation period. There was no equitable basis to disapply the limitation period due to unexplained delay and prejudice to the defendant. Permission to amend the existing claim regarding responsibility for publication was granted in principle, subject to modifications. The defendant was allowed to serve a supplementary statement and amend the Defence to correct errors and clarify his position.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application to add a new cause of action refused; application to amend existing claim granted in principle with modifications; defendant's applications 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.