First Roodhill Leasing Ltd [2001] EWHC Ch 397 (5th July, 2001)

First Roodhill Leasing Ltd [2001] EWHC Ch 397 (5th July, 2001)

The application to amend is refused because the proposed new claims in constructive trust/equitable charge are plainly statute barred, and the claim in restitution may well be statute barred. Medway has a reasonably arguable limitation defence, and justice requires the claimant to pursue any new claims in a fresh action. The amendments do not arise out of the same facts as the original claim for arrears of rent.

Citation
[2001] EWHC Ch 397
Parties
Claimant: First Roodhill Leasing Limited; First Defendant: Gillingham Operating Company Limited; Second Defendant: Medway Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Application to Amend Pleadings / Judgment on Application for Permission to Amend
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Ultra Vires, Statutory Limitation, Constructive Trust, Equitable Charge, Mistake of Law, Amendment of Pleadings
Local Government Law Contract Law Restitution Equity Limitation Ultra Vires Statutory Limitation Constructive Trust +3 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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

First Roodhill Leasing Limited

Claimant

Gillingham Operating Company Limited

First Defendant

Medway Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Amend Pleadings / Judgment on Application for Permission to Amend

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant may amend its pleadings to add claims in restitution and constructive trust/equitable charge against Medway Council
  2. 2 Whether such claims are statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  3. 3 Whether section 32(1)(c) of the Limitation Act 1980 applies to postpone the limitation period due to mistake

Ratio Decidendi

The application to amend is refused because the proposed new claims in constructive trust/equitable charge are plainly statute barred, and the claim in restitution may well be statute barred. Medway has a reasonably arguable limitation defence, and justice requires the claimant to pursue any new claims in a fresh action. The amendments do not arise out of the same facts as the original claim for arrears of rent.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Permission to amend the Particulars of Claim is refused