Libyan Investment Authority & Ors v King & Ors

Libyan Investment Authority & Ors v King & Ors

The court held that the proposed amendments to the claim form and particulars of claim arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as previously pleaded, do not require relief from sanctions as the claimants complied with the prior order, and do not constitute an abuse of process. The amendments are permitted because the claims in deceit, breach of duty (now framed as a duty of honesty as agent), dishonest assistance, and conspiracy are realistically arguable on the pleaded facts and have a real prospect of success. The amendments are not statute-barred under CPR r.17.4, and the defendants are not prejudiced by new factual investigations outside the scope of the prior pleadings.

Parties
Claimant: Libyan Investment Authority; Claimant: LIA Advisory Services (UK) Limited; Claimant: Maplecross Holdings Investment Company Limited; Defendant: Roger Milner King; Defendant: International Group Limited; Defendant: Beeson Property Investments Limited; Defendant: Stoke Park Estates; Defendant: Charles Montgomery Merry; Defendant: Conrad Strategic Partners Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/fraud) / Ruling on Application for Permission to Re Amend Claim Form and Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Application for permission to re-amend claim form and particulars of claim granted.
Legal Topics
Deceit (fraudulent Misrepresentation), Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Dishonest Assistance, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Limitation of Actions, Civil Procedure—amendment of Pleadings, Relief From Sanctions
Commercial Law Tort Law Equity Deceit (fraudulent Misrepresentation) Breach of Fiduciary Duty Dishonest Assistance Unlawful Means Conspiracy Limitation of Actions +2 more

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 7 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Libyan Investment Authority

Claimant

LIA Advisory Services (UK) Limited

Claimant

Maplecross Holdings Investment Company Limited

Claimant

Roger Milner King

Defendant

International Group Limited

Defendant

Beeson Property Investments Limited

Defendant

Stoke Park Estates

Defendant

Charles Montgomery Merry

Defendant

Conrad Strategic Partners Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/fraud) / Ruling on Application for Permission to Re Amend Claim Form and Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants should be granted permission to re-amend the claim form and particulars of claim to advance claims in deceit, breach of fiduciary/agency duty, dishonest assistance, and conspiracy against the defendants;
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments are statute-barred or constitute an abuse of process;
  3. 3 Whether the amendments arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as previously pleaded;

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the proposed amendments to the claim form and particulars of claim arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as previously pleaded, do not require relief from sanctions as the claimants complied with the prior order, and do not constitute an abuse of process. The amendments are permitted because the claims in deceit, breach of duty (now framed as a duty of honesty as agent), dishonest assistance, and conspiracy are realistically arguable on the pleaded facts and have a real prospect of success. The amendments are not statute-barred under CPR r.17.4, and the defendants are not prejudiced by new factual investigations outside the scope of the prior pleadings.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to re-amend claim form and particulars of claim granted.

Orders

  • Permission granted to the claimants to re-amend the amended claim form and to serve re-re-amended particulars of claim in the form attached to the 28.5.19 application.