Phaestos Ltd & Anor v Ho [2012] EWHC 653 (TCC) (14 March 2012)
The application for extension is refused because neither voluntary change of solicitors nor complexity in particularising quantum constitute good reasons for delay; timely provision of particulars is essential for fair trial and case management.
- Citation
- [2012] EWHC 653 (TCC)
- Parties
- Claimant: Phaestos Ltd; Claimant: Mindimaxnox LLP; Defendant: Peter Ho
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 14 March 2012
- Procedural Posture
- High Court Civil Litigation / Interlocutory Application for Extension of Time to Comply With Order for Further Particulars
- Outcome
- Application for extension of time dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Particularisation of Quantum, Disclosure, Split Trial (liability and Quantum)
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Phaestos Ltd
Claimant
Mindimaxnox LLP
Claimant
Peter Ho
Defendant
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Litigation / Interlocutory Application for Extension of Time to Comply With Order for Further Particulars
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether claimants should be granted an extension of time to provide particulars of quantum
- 2 Whether voluntary change of solicitors justifies extension
- 3 Whether complexity of causation justifies extension
Ratio Decidendi
The application for extension is refused because neither voluntary change of solicitors nor complexity in particularising quantum constitute good reasons for delay; timely provision of particulars is essential for fair trial and case management.
Court Disposition
Application for extension of time dismissed
Orders
- Claimants must comply with existing order to provide particulars by 27 March 2012
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment