Scott & Ors v Singh

Scott & Ors v Singh

Permission to amend was refused for new financial representation claims, claims in negligent misstatement, and claims based on representations allegedly made by failure to challenge draft terms, as these were new claims, inadequately pleaded, lacked real prospects of success, or would jeopardise the trial date without good reason. Permission was granted for amendments relating to the Bison Claim (director's duties), the insurance situation, the Maritime and Fowler Welch representations (with proper particularisation), the Bison/Roadways legality representations (excluding those based solely on draft agreements), and the Global Profit Representation (excluding unparticularised contingent...

Parties
Claimant: Andrew Pervis Scott; Claimant: Adam Lewis; Claimant: Bison Transport Limited (in liquidation); Defendant: Harbinder Singh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial) / Ruling on Application to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Permission to amend granted in part and refused in part.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Breach of Warranty, Negligent Misstatement, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Director's Duties, Assignment of Claims, Reflective Loss, Pleading Standards, Amendment of Pleadings
Contract Law Company Law Tort Law Misrepresentation Breach of Warranty Negligent Misstatement Fraudulent Misrepresentation Director's Duties +4 more

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Pervis Scott

Claimant

Adam Lewis

Claimant

Bison Transport Limited (in liquidation)

Claimant

Harbinder Singh

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial) / Ruling on Application to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to amend the Particulars of Claim to introduce new and/or expanded claims including misrepresentation, negligent misstatement, breach of director's duties, and assignment of claims.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments amount to new claims or are merely further particularisation of existing claims.
  3. 3 Whether the amendments are properly pleaded and have real prospects of success.

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to amend was refused for new financial representation claims, claims in negligent misstatement, and claims based on representations allegedly made by failure to challenge draft terms, as these were new claims, inadequately pleaded, lacked real prospects of success, or would jeopardise the trial date without good reason. Permission was granted for amendments relating to the Bison Claim (director's duties), the insurance situation, the Maritime and Fowler Welch representations (with proper particularisation), the Bison/Roadways legality representations (excluding those based solely on draft agreements), and the Global Profit Representation (excluding unparticularised contingent...

Court Disposition

Permission to amend granted in part and refused in part.

Orders

  • Permission to amend Particulars of Claim granted for Bison Claim (director's duties), insurance situation, Maritime and Fowler Welch representations (with proper particularisation), Bison/Roadways legality representations (excluding those based solely on draft agreements), and Global Profit Representation (excluding...
  • Permission to amend refused for new financial representation claims, negligent misstatement claims, and claims based on representations by failure to challenge draft terms.