Bonnier Books UK Group Holdings Ltd & Ors v Haysmacintyre LLP [2022] EWHC 3170 (Comm) (05 December 2022)

Bonnier Books UK Group Holdings Ltd & Ors v Haysmacintyre LLP [2022] EWHC 3170 (Comm) (05 December 2022)

Permission to amend was refused for the proposed new section D(i) as it introduced a new and more extensive duty to report to PwC Stockholm, which did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the existing claim and would require significant new factual and legal investigation, contrary to the policy of the limitation and amendment rules. Permission was granted for amendments to paragraphs 46 and 50 only insofar as they particularised existing allegations and did not introduce new issues outside the current pleadings.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 3170 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Bonnier Books UK Group Holdings Limited (formerly Bonnier Publishing Limited); Claimant: Bonnier Media Limited; Claimant: Bonnier Zaffre Limited; Claimant: Bonnier Books UK Limited; Claimant: Igloo Books UK Limited; Defendant: Haysmacintyre LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Application for Permission to Amend Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Permission to amend refused in part and granted in part
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation Period, Auditor's Duties, Disclosure, Procedural Discretion
Civil Procedure Contract Law Tort Law Professional Negligence Amendment of Pleadings Limitation Period Auditor's Duties Disclosure +1 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bonnier Books UK Group Holdings Limited (formerly Bonnier Publishing Limited)

Claimant

Bonnier Media Limited

Claimant

Bonnier Zaffre Limited

Claimant

Bonnier Books UK Limited

Claimant

Igloo Books UK Limited

Claimant

Haysmacintyre LLP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Application for Permission to Amend Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to amend the Particulars of Claim to introduce new duties and allegations after the expiry of the limitation period
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the existing claim
  3. 3 Whether the amendments would cause procedural prejudice or require significant new factual investigation

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to amend was refused for the proposed new section D(i) as it introduced a new and more extensive duty to report to PwC Stockholm, which did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the existing claim and would require significant new factual and legal investigation, contrary to the policy of the limitation and amendment rules. Permission was granted for amendments to paragraphs 46 and 50 only insofar as they particularised existing allegations and did not introduce new issues outside the current pleadings.

Court Disposition

Permission to amend refused in part and granted in part

Orders

  • Permission refused for proposed new Section D(i) alleging duty to report to PwC Stockholm.
  • Permission granted to amend paragraphs 46 and 50, subject to refinement regarding the phrase 'willing and/or able'.