MacFirbhisigh (Ching) -v- CI Trustees and Executors Ltd [2014] JRC 033 (05 February 2014)

MacFirbhisigh (Ching) -v- CI Trustees and Executors Ltd [2014] JRC 033 (05 February 2014)

The plaintiffs' proposed amendments to pleadings are allowed only to the extent that they clarify or restate existing claims in negligence, negligent misstatement, and breach of fiduciary duty, as these arise from substantially the same facts as previously pleaded. Allegations of deceit, dishonest assistance (except in relation to the AIB bond), and piercing the corporate veil are struck out as inadequately particularised, unsupported by evidence, or raised too late. The plaintiffs are given two weeks to file a re-amended order of justice in accordance with these directions.

Citation
[2014] JRC 033
Parties
Plaintiffs: Mr and Mrs Ching; Defendant: First Defendant (CITE); Defendant: Second Defendant; Defendant: Third Defendant; Defendant: Fourth Defendant; Defendant: Fifth Defendant (Mr Gidley); Defendant: Sixth Defendant (Mr Killmister); Defendant: Seventh Defendant (Mr Manning)
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
05 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out and Amendment of Pleadings)
Outcome
Partial strike out and conditional leave to amend
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Strike Out Applications, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Negligence, Negligent Misstatement, Dishonest Assistance, Deceit, Piercing the Corporate Veil
Civil Procedure Trusts and Estates Tort Law Amendment of Pleadings Strike Out Applications Breach of Fiduciary Duty Negligence Negligent Misstatement +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr and Mrs Ching

Plaintiffs

First Defendant (CITE)

Defendant

Second Defendant

Defendant

Third Defendant

Defendant

Fourth Defendant

Defendant

Fifth Defendant (Mr Gidley)

Defendant

Sixth Defendant (Mr Killmister)

Defendant

Seventh Defendant (Mr Manning)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out and Amendment of Pleadings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs should be permitted to re-amend their order of justice to include new causes of action including deceit and piercing the corporate veil
  2. 2 Whether the claims against the sixth defendant should be struck out
  3. 3 Whether the amended pleadings sufficiently particularise allegations of deceit, dishonest assistance, and impropriety for piercing the corporate veil

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs' proposed amendments to pleadings are allowed only to the extent that they clarify or restate existing claims in negligence, negligent misstatement, and breach of fiduciary duty, as these arise from substantially the same facts as previously pleaded. Allegations of deceit, dishonest assistance (except in relation to the AIB bond), and piercing the corporate veil are struck out as inadequately particularised, unsupported by evidence, or raised too late. The plaintiffs are given two weeks to file a re-amended order of justice in accordance with these directions.

Court Disposition

Partial strike out and conditional leave to amend

Orders

  • Plaintiffs granted two weeks to file a re-amended order of justice consistent with the judgment.
  • All allegations of deceit, dishonest assistance (except as to the AIB bond), and piercing the corporate veil to be removed from the pleadings.