Guerrero & 30 Ors v Monterrico Metals Plc

Guerrero & 30 Ors v Monterrico Metals Plc

The Master was entitled to grant leave to amend the pleadings as the amendments are potentially probative of the Defendant's liability and rebut its positive case. The balancing of prejudice and probative value was within the Master's discretion, and the appellate court should not interfere unless the decision was...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Mario Alberto Tabra Guerrero & 30 others; Defendant: Monterrico Metals Plc; Claimant: Menandro Neyra Caucha and another; Defendant: Monterrico Metals Plc & anr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal Against Master's Order Granting Leave to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Master's order granting leave to amend pleadings upheld.
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Trespass to the Person, False Imprisonment, Conspiracy, Limitation, Disclosure, Case Management, Amendment of Pleadings
Tort Law Civil Procedure Company Law International Law Vicarious Liability Trespass to the Person False Imprisonment Conspiracy +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mario Alberto Tabra Guerrero & 30 others

Claimant

Monterrico Metals Plc

Defendant

Menandro Neyra Caucha and another

Claimant

Monterrico Metals Plc & anr

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal Against Master's Order Granting Leave to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amendments to the pleadings are probative and permissible under CPR and O'Brien principles
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant can be held vicariously liable for acts of police and agents
  3. 3 Whether the amendments cause disproportionate prejudice or cost to the Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The Master was entitled to grant leave to amend the pleadings as the amendments are potentially probative of the Defendant's liability and rebut its positive case. The balancing of prejudice and probative value was within the Master's discretion, and the appellate court should not interfere unless the decision was plainly wrong. The amendments fall within the O'Brien test and are justified, though concerns about proportionality and particularity may be addressed at a later stage by the trial judge.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Master's order granting leave to amend pleadings upheld.

Orders

  • Permission to amend pleadings granted on usual terms as to costs.
  • Case management conference adjourned for further consideration of scope and proportionality of issues.