Phaestos Ltd. & Anor v Ho [2012] EWHC 1996 (TCC) (19 July 2012)

Phaestos Ltd. & Anor v Ho [2012] EWHC 1996 (TCC) (19 July 2012)

The claimants' delays in disclosure were largely of their own making, but a final extension was granted in line with the overriding objective. Permission to amend the quantum claim was refused as the amendment was late, inadequately pleaded, and would prejudice the trial timetable. The court imposed a final order for disclosure with a sanction of strike-out for non-compliance.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1996 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: PHAESTOS LIMITED; Claimant: MINDIMAXNOX LLP; Claimant: IKOS CIF LIMITED; Defendant: PETER HO; Defendant: TOBIN MAXWELL GOVER
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Interlocutory Applications: Amendment of Damages Claim and Extension of Time for Disclosure
Outcome
Extension of time for disclosure granted on a final basis; application to amend quantum claim refused.
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Amendment of Pleadings, Case Management, Damages Quantification, Sanctions for Non Compliance
Civil Procedure Contract Law Disclosure Amendment of Pleadings Case Management Damages Quantification Sanctions for Non Compliance

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 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PHAESTOS LIMITED

Claimant

MINDIMAXNOX LLP

Claimant

IKOS CIF LIMITED

Claimant

PETER HO

Defendant

TOBIN MAXWELL GOVER

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Interlocutory Applications: Amendment of Damages Claim and Extension of Time for Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants should be granted an extension of time for disclosure
  2. 2 Whether the claimants should be permitted to amend their damages claim

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' delays in disclosure were largely of their own making, but a final extension was granted in line with the overriding objective. Permission to amend the quantum claim was refused as the amendment was late, inadequately pleaded, and would prejudice the trial timetable. The court imposed a final order for disclosure with a sanction of strike-out for non-compliance.

Court Disposition

Extension of time for disclosure granted on a final basis; application to amend quantum claim refused.

Orders

  • Claimants to complete disclosure by 4 pm on 3 August 2012, failing which their claims and defences will be struck out and defendants may enter judgment on counterclaims.
  • Permission to apply for further extension only for good reason and by 3 August 2012.