KMG International NV v Chen & Anor

KMG International NV v Chen & Anor

The claimant's application to amend was refused because the amendment was late, inconsistent with the case previously advanced for forum purposes, lacked a good explanation for lateness, and would cause prejudice and injustice to the defendants by potentially altering the forum determination and not allowing adequate time for expert evidence and trial preparation. The scope of expert evidence is restricted to the issues defined in the case management order, and the Veder report must be revised to reflect this judgment.

Parties
Claimant: KMG International NV; Defendant: Melanie Anne Chen; Defendant: Chipper Management Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Interlocutory Applications—application to Amend Pleadings and Strike Out Expert Report
Outcome
Claimant's application to amend pleadings refused; claimant's application to expand scope of expert evidence refused; defendants' application to strike out Veder report granted in part—claimant required to serve revised expert report.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Expert Evidence, Forum Non Conveniens, Dutch Law—article 6:162, Strike Out Applications
Civil Procedure Private International Law Tort Amendment of Pleadings Expert Evidence Forum Non Conveniens Dutch Law—article 6:162 Strike Out Applications

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KMG International NV

Claimant

Melanie Anne Chen

Defendant

Chipper Management Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Interlocutory Applications—application to Amend Pleadings and Strike Out Expert Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be permitted to amend its pleadings to introduce an alternative basis of liability under Dutch law based on knowledge rather than intention
  2. 2 Whether the expert report (Veder report) should be struck out or revised due to addressing issues outside the permitted scope
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's application to expand the scope of expert evidence should be allowed

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's application to amend was refused because the amendment was late, inconsistent with the case previously advanced for forum purposes, lacked a good explanation for lateness, and would cause prejudice and injustice to the defendants by potentially altering the forum determination and not allowing adequate time for expert evidence and trial preparation. The scope of expert evidence is restricted to the issues defined in the case management order, and the Veder report must be revised to reflect this judgment.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application to amend pleadings refused; claimant's application to expand scope of expert evidence refused; defendants' application to strike out Veder report granted in part—claimant required to serve revised expert report.

Orders

  • Amendment Application refused.
  • Application to expand scope of expert evidence refused.