Phaestos Ltd. & Anor v Ho

Phaestos Ltd. & Anor v Ho

The Claimants' failures to comply with disclosure and to properly particularise their quantum claim were unjustified and largely of their own making. The application to amend was refused due to lateness, inadequate pleading, and inevitable prejudice to the Defendants and the trial timetable. Disclosure was extended as a final order, with an unless provision for strike out in case of further non-compliance.

Parties
Claimant: Phaestos Limited; Claimant: Mindimaxnox LLP; Defendant: Peter Ho; Defendant: IKOS CIF Limited; Defendant: Tobin Maxwell Gover
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial/contract/negligence / Interlocutory Application (amendment of Claim and Extension of Time for Disclosure)
Outcome
Claimants' application to amend refused; extension for disclosure granted as a final order with unless provision; costs awarded to Defendants on indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Documents, Amendment of Pleadings, Case Management, Sanctions for Non Compliance, Damages Quantification
Civil Procedure Contract Law Professional Negligence Disclosure of Documents Amendment of Pleadings Case Management Sanctions for Non Compliance Damages Quantification

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phaestos Limited

Claimant

Mindimaxnox LLP

Claimant

Peter Ho

Defendant

IKOS CIF Limited

Defendant

Tobin Maxwell Gover

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial/contract/negligence / Interlocutory Application (amendment of Claim and Extension of Time for Disclosure)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimants should be granted an extension of time to comply with disclosure orders
  2. 2 Whether the Claimants should be permitted to amend their quantum claim as pleaded
  3. 3 Whether the Claimants' failures justify sanctions including strike out of claims or defences

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants' failures to comply with disclosure and to properly particularise their quantum claim were unjustified and largely of their own making. The application to amend was refused due to lateness, inadequate pleading, and inevitable prejudice to the Defendants and the trial timetable. Disclosure was extended as a final order, with an unless provision for strike out in case of further non-compliance.

Court Disposition

Claimants' application to amend refused; extension for disclosure granted as a final order with unless provision; costs awarded to Defendants on indemnity basis.

Orders

  • Claimants to disclose by list and provide for inspection their electronic and hard copy documents on a rolling basis by no later than 4 pm on 3 August 2012 (final order).
  • If Claimants have not complied by 4 pm on 10 August 2012, their claims and defences to the Defendants' claims shall be struck out and Defendants may enter judgment for the full amount of the Counterclaims.