Hardey v Associated Rentals Ltd [2010] ScotCS CSOH_27 (10 March 2010)

Hardey v Associated Rentals Ltd [2010] ScotCS CSOH_27 (10 March 2010)

The motion to amend the pleadings by introducing new averments of fraud and conspiracy, particularly involving Palma Russo, was refused because the proposed amendments lacked a factual basis, were speculative, came too late, would cause prejudice, and did not overcome the absolute immunity for witness evidence established in Darker. The pleadings, even as amended, did not disclose a relevant case as they were fundamentally based on allegations of perjured evidence, which is immune from civil action.

Citation
[2010] ScotCS CSOH_27
Parties
Pursuer: John Hardey; Defender: Associated Rentals Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil (damages/delict) / Motion to Amend Pleadings (procedure Roll)
Outcome
Motion to amend refused in part; amendment allowed only in respect of paragraphs 2 and 3, not paragraph 1.
Legal Topics
Fraud on the Court, Witness Immunity, Amendment of Pleadings, Time Bar (prescription)
Civil Procedure Delict (tort) Fraud on the Court Witness Immunity Amendment of Pleadings Time Bar (prescription)

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Hardey

Pursuer

Associated Rentals Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (damages/delict) / Motion to Amend Pleadings (procedure Roll)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer should be allowed to amend pleadings to introduce new averments of fraud and conspiracy involving additional parties
  2. 2 Whether the action is time-barred
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings disclose a relevant case in light of witness immunity for evidence given in court

Ratio Decidendi

The motion to amend the pleadings by introducing new averments of fraud and conspiracy, particularly involving Palma Russo, was refused because the proposed amendments lacked a factual basis, were speculative, came too late, would cause prejudice, and did not overcome the absolute immunity for witness evidence established in Darker. The pleadings, even as amended, did not disclose a relevant case as they were fundamentally based on allegations of perjured evidence, which is immune from civil action.

Court Disposition

Motion to amend refused in part; amendment allowed only in respect of paragraphs 2 and 3, not paragraph 1.

Orders

  • Closed Record to be amended in terms of the Minute of Amendment and Answers under deletion of paragraph 1 and Answer 1.