1999/216 - Mayo v Bank Cantrade and Touche Ross [1999] UR 216 (17 December 1999)

1999/216 - Mayo v Bank Cantrade and Touche Ross [1999] UR 216 (17 December 1999)

The draft re-amended Answer raises a proper defence of illegality as a matter of pleading. Allegations relating to the Plaintiffs' contracts with investors and their conduct are relevant to the claim against Cantrade. The application for leave to amend is granted, subject to Cantrade providing further particulars for certain paragraphs within 21 days.

Citation
[1999] UR 216
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiffs (First, Second, and Third Plaintiffs); Defendant: Cantrade
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
17 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Application for leave to file re-amended Answer granted, subject to provision of further particulars within 21 days.
Legal Topics
Pleading Amendments, Illegality Defence (ex Turpi Causa), Fiduciary Duties, Misrepresentation, Negligence, Discovery and Particulars
Civil Procedure Contract Law Banking Law Trusts and Fiduciary Law Pleading Amendments Illegality Defence (ex Turpi Causa) Fiduciary Duties Misrepresentation +2 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiffs (First, Second, and Third Plaintiffs)

Plaintiff

Cantrade

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Cantrade should be granted leave to file a re-amended Answer introducing new allegations, including illegality and dishonesty, against the Plaintiffs.
  2. 2 Whether the new allegations are relevant and sufficiently particularised under the rules of pleading.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiffs' conduct towards investors can be raised as a defence to their contractual claim against Cantrade.

Ratio Decidendi

The draft re-amended Answer raises a proper defence of illegality as a matter of pleading. Allegations relating to the Plaintiffs' contracts with investors and their conduct are relevant to the claim against Cantrade. The application for leave to amend is granted, subject to Cantrade providing further particulars for certain paragraphs within 21 days.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to file re-amended Answer granted, subject to provision of further particulars within 21 days.

Orders

  • Leave granted to Cantrade to file re-amended Answer with revisions submitted on 17 September 1999, conditional on supplying specified particulars within 21 days.
  • No separate order on the Plaintiffs' summons of 3 September 1999.