Bruce v TTA Management Ltd & Ors

Bruce v TTA Management Ltd & Ors

Permission to re-amend the particulars of claim is refused because the proposed amendments are prolix, unclear, improperly seek to revive claims previously struck out, would cause disproportionate additional work and cost, and the claimant already has a viable claim in deceit as pleaded in the existing statement of case.

Parties
Claimant: David Alastair Bruce; Defendant: TTA Management Limited; Defendant: Todd Lee Carpenter; Defendant: Stephen Jeffrey Clark; Defendant: James Nicholas Stones; Defendant: Strobuth Investments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Permission to Re Amend Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Application for permission to re-amend particulars of claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Fraud (deceit), Conspiracy, Breach of Contract, Limitation of Actions
Civil Procedure Contract Law Tort Law Amendment of Pleadings Fraud (deceit) Conspiracy Breach of Contract Limitation of Actions

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Alastair Bruce

Claimant

TTA Management Limited

Defendant

Todd Lee Carpenter

Defendant

Stephen Jeffrey Clark

Defendant

James Nicholas Stones

Defendant

Strobuth Investments Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Permission to Re Amend Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be granted permission to re-amend the particulars of claim (RAPOC3)
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments improperly seek to revive claims previously struck out (conspiracy, breach of contract)
  3. 3 Whether the proposed amendments are late and would cause prejudice

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to re-amend the particulars of claim is refused because the proposed amendments are prolix, unclear, improperly seek to revive claims previously struck out, would cause disproportionate additional work and cost, and the claimant already has a viable claim in deceit as pleaded in the existing statement of case.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to re-amend particulars of claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant's application for permission to re-amend particulars of claim is dismissed
  • The claim will proceed to trial as currently pleaded