Samba Financial Group v Byers & Anor

Samba Financial Group v Byers & Anor

The new constructive trust claim did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the original s.127 claim; the amendment would require Samba to investigate a new and extensive factual matrix not previously in issue, and thus could not be permitted under CPR 17.4(2).

Parties
Appellant: Samba Financial Group; Respondent: Mark Byers; Respondent: Hugh Dickson; Respondent: Saad Investments Company Limited (in liquidation)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation of Actions, Constructive Trusts, Forum Non Conveniens, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Insolvency Trusts Amendment of Pleadings Limitation of Actions Constructive Trusts Forum Non Conveniens Abuse of Process

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samba Financial Group

Appellant

Mark Byers

Respondent

Hugh Dickson

Respondent

Saad Investments Company Limited (in liquidation)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the new constructive trust claim arises out of the same or substantially the same facts as the original s.127 Insolvency Act claim for the purposes of CPR 17.4(2) and s.35 Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether permission to amend should be granted after expiry of the limitation period
  3. 3 Whether the amendment would unfairly prejudice the appellant by depriving it of a limitation defence

Ratio Decidendi

The new constructive trust claim did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the original s.127 claim; the amendment would require Samba to investigate a new and extensive factual matrix not previously in issue, and thus could not be permitted under CPR 17.4(2).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order granting permission to re-amend Particulars of Claim quashed
  • 2013 action dismissed