Morison v Eichner and Conway [2002] JRC 194D (14 October 2002)

Morison v Eichner and Conway [2002] JRC 194D (14 October 2002)

The court disallowed the amendments to introduce allegations of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, alcoholism, and general disability due to lack of independent expert evidence and the unspecific nature of the pleadings. The court also disallowed the amendment to plead dol or réticence dolosive as an alternative legal basis, finding it either unnecessary or likely to cause delay and injustice at this late stage. Leave was granted only for the unopposed deletion of certain heads of damage.

Citation
[2002] JRC 194D
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: First Defendant; Defendant: Second Defendant
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
14 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Application to amend pleadings granted in part and refused in part.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Rescission of Contract, Pleading Requirements
Civil Procedure Contract Law Amendment of Pleadings Fraudulent Misrepresentation Rescission of Contract Pleading Requirements

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

First Defendant

Defendant

Second Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant should be granted leave to amend his answer and counterclaim to (1) delete certain heads of damage, (2) introduce allegations of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, alcoholism, and general disability, and (3) plead dol or réticence dolosive as an alternative basis for rescission.

Ratio Decidendi

The court disallowed the amendments to introduce allegations of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, alcoholism, and general disability due to lack of independent expert evidence and the unspecific nature of the pleadings. The court also disallowed the amendment to plead dol or réticence dolosive as an alternative legal basis, finding it either unnecessary or likely to cause delay and injustice at this late stage. Leave was granted only for the unopposed deletion of certain heads of damage.

Court Disposition

Application to amend pleadings granted in part and refused in part.

Orders

  • Leave granted to delete certain heads of damage.
  • Leave refused to introduce allegations of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, alcoholism, and general disability.