Lokhova v Longmuir [2016] EWHC 2579 (QB) (20 October 2016)
Permission to amend the Particulars of Claim to add the three new causes of action (two libel, one slander) is refused because the new claims are weak, fail to meet the Jameel threshold, are subject to significant unjustified delay, would prejudice the defendant by depriving him of a limitation defence, and would unnecessarily complicate the litigation. Permission to amend the damages claim to include matters arising from the new claims is also refused. The court will strike out parts of the Reply relying on the same matters.
- Citation
- [2016] EWHC 2579 (QB)
- Parties
- Claimant: Svetlana Lokhova; Defendant: David Longmuir
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 20 October 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Defamation—application to Amend Particulars of Claim / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Amend Pleadings
- Outcome
- Application refused
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation Period, Aggravated Damages, Offer of Amends, Serious Harm Requirement, Jameel Abuse, Case Management
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Svetlana Lokhova
Claimant
David Longmuir
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Defamation—application to Amend Particulars of Claim / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Amend Pleadings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether permission should be granted to amend the Particulars of Claim to add new causes of action after expiry of the limitation period
- 2 Whether the new claims arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the existing claims (CPR 17.4(2))
- 3 Whether the new claims are tenable or amount to an abuse of process (Jameel threshold)
Ratio Decidendi
Permission to amend the Particulars of Claim to add the three new causes of action (two libel, one slander) is refused because the new claims are weak, fail to meet the Jameel threshold, are subject to significant unjustified delay, would prejudice the defendant by depriving him of a limitation defence, and would unnecessarily complicate the litigation. Permission to amend the damages claim to include matters arising from the new claims is also refused. The court will strike out parts of the Reply relying on the same matters.
Court Disposition
Application refused
Orders
- Permission to amend Particulars of Claim to add new causes of action refused
- Permission to amend damages claim to include matters arising from new claims refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment