Frontiers Capital I Limited Partnership v Thomas Flohr

Frontiers Capital I Limited Partnership v Thomas Flohr

The claim is time-barred because, on the evidence, the claimant (through Mr Horlick) had knowledge of the relevant facts to bring the pleaded claims by November 2013, more than six years before the claim was issued. The claimant cannot rely on section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 to postpone limitation, as it could with reasonable diligence have discovered the facts. The proposed amendment to plead fraudulent misrepresentation is a new cause of action based on substantially different facts and is also time-barred; permission to amend is refused.

Parties
Claimant: Frontiers Capital I Limited Partnership (acting by Frontiers Capital General Partner Limited); Defendant: Thomas Flohr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/chancery) / Summary Judgment and Application to Amend Claim
Outcome
Claim dismissed; application to amend refused
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Fiduciary Duties, Implied Duty of Good Faith, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Reflective Loss, Company Restoration, Summary Judgment, Amendment of Pleadings
Commercial Law Equity and Trusts Company Law Contract Law Limitation of Actions Fiduciary Duties Implied Duty of Good Faith Fraudulent Misrepresentation +4 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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frontiers Capital I Limited Partnership (acting by Frontiers Capital General Partner Limited)

Claimant

Thomas Flohr

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/chancery) / Summary Judgment and Application to Amend Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim is time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, section 32
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has pleaded a viable cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty and/or implied duty of good faith
  3. 3 Whether the claimant can amend to plead fraudulent misrepresentation after expiry of limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is time-barred because, on the evidence, the claimant (through Mr Horlick) had knowledge of the relevant facts to bring the pleaded claims by November 2013, more than six years before the claim was issued. The claimant cannot rely on section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 to postpone limitation, as it could with reasonable diligence have discovered the facts. The proposed amendment to plead fraudulent misrepresentation is a new cause of action based on substantially different facts and is also time-barred; permission to amend is refused.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; application to amend refused

Orders

  • Claim dismissed as time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  • Application for permission to amend to plead fraudulent misrepresentation refused