Republic of Brazil v Durant [2012] JCA 151 (22 August 2012)

Republic of Brazil v Durant [2012] JCA 151 (22 August 2012)

The application for leave to re-amend was refused because the explanation for the lateness was inadequate, there was no new circumstance justifying the amendment, and the original admission was unlikely to have been accidental. The application for leave to appeal did not demonstrate that the lower court had gone wrong. The application to adduce further evidence was also refused as there was no point in doing so.

Citation
[2012] JCA 151
Parties
Respondent/plaintiff: The Federal Republic of Brazil; Respondent/plaintiff: The Municipality of Sao Paulo; Applicant/defendant: Durant International Corporation; Applicant/defendant: Kildare Finance Limited; Party Cited: Deutsche Bank International Limited; Party Cited: Deutsche International Custodial Services Limited; Party Cited: Deutsche International Corporate Services Limited; Party Cited: Deutsche International Trustee Services (CI) Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
22 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Single Judge Determination at Court of Appeal
Outcome
Applications refused
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Leave to Appeal, Limitation Defence, Locus Standi
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Leave to Appeal Limitation Defence Locus Standi

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Federal Republic of Brazil

Respondent/plaintiff

The Municipality of Sao Paulo

Respondent/plaintiff

Durant International Corporation

Applicant/defendant

Kildare Finance Limited

Applicant/defendant

Deutsche Bank International Limited

Party Cited

Deutsche International Custodial Services Limited

Party Cited

Deutsche International Corporate Services Limited

Party Cited

Deutsche International Trustee Services (CI) Limited

Party Cited

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Single Judge Determination at Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to re-amend the Answer should have been granted to the defendants
  2. 2 Whether the explanation for the lateness of the application to amend was adequate
  3. 3 Whether further evidence should be admitted on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to re-amend was refused because the explanation for the lateness was inadequate, there was no new circumstance justifying the amendment, and the original admission was unlikely to have been accidental. The application for leave to appeal did not demonstrate that the lower court had gone wrong. The application to adduce further evidence was also refused as there was no point in doing so.

Court Disposition

Applications refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed
  • Application to adduce further evidence refused