PJSC Tatneft v Gennady Bogolyubov & Ors
The proposed re-amendments introduce a new claim based on different wrongful conduct and facts, which does not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the existing claim; permission to amend is refused as the new claim is time-barred and cannot be introduced.
- Parties
- Claimant: PJSC Tatneft; Defendant: Gennady Bogolyubov; Defendant: Second Defendant; Defendant: Third Defendant; Defendant: Fourth Defendant
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 26 September 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Commercial / Application for Permission to Re Amend Particulars of Claim
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation Periods, Foreign Law, Assignment of Claims
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
PJSC Tatneft
Claimant
Gennady Bogolyubov
Defendant
Second Defendant
Defendant
Third Defendant
Defendant
Fourth Defendant
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Application for Permission to Re Amend Particulars of Claim
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether proposed re-amendments constitute a new claim under CPR 17.4 and Limitation Act 1980
- 2 Whether the new claim arises out of the same or substantially the same facts as the existing claim
- 3 Whether discretion should be exercised to allow the amendment
Ratio Decidendi
The proposed re-amendments introduce a new claim based on different wrongful conduct and facts, which does not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the existing claim; permission to amend is refused as the new claim is time-barred and cannot be introduced.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- permission to re-amend particulars of claim 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