Investment Bank PSC v Ahmad Mohammad El-Husseini & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1235 (Comm)
Allianz Funds Multi-Strategy Trust & Ors v Barclays Bank Plc
2 August 2023
[2023] EWHC 2015 (Ch)
High Court
Investors sued Barclays, but made lots of mistakes in their paperwork. A judge mostly let them fix the mistakes, but not the really big ones, because they waited too long and didn't do their homework properly. The judge said it's unfair to make the investors lose their case entirely because of their lawyers' errors, but it's also important to be accurate.
Key Facts
- •Claimants are investors who acquired Barclays Bank plc shares, some during a 2013 rights issue.
- •The claim alleges misleading statements and omissions related to Barclays' alternative trading system, 'LX Liquidity Cross'.
- •A Standstill Agreement suspended the limitation period until January 2021.
- •Claimants sought to amend the Claim Form to correct errors in Claimant names and descriptions, leading to two amendment applications.
- •The amendments involved name changes, typographical errors, different trust structures (MBTs, DSTs), and incorrect capacities.
- •The Defendant argued that many amendments were not permissible under CPR 17.4 or 19.6, and that even if permissible, the court should exercise its discretion to refuse them due to Claimant conduct.
Legal Principles
Relation back of amendments; new claims deemed commenced on original action date.
Limitation Act 1980, Section 35
Court's power to permit amendments to statements of case, including adding or substituting parties.
CPR Part 17.4
Court's power to add or substitute parties after the limitation period, subject to conditions.
CPR Part 19.6
Sardinia Sulcis test: Amendment allowed if claimant's identity is clear despite a name mistake, not if there is reasonable doubt about identity.
The Sardinia Sulcis [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 201
Court's discretion in granting amendments: considers mistake quality, speed of correction, prejudice to each party, and defendant's knowledge.
Various Cases (Insight, G4S, etc.)
Outcomes
Permission granted for most amendments.
The initial notification of claims before (or arguably before) the limitation period expired, coupled with significant prejudice to Claimants if amendments were refused, outweighed the delays and errors made. The Court considered the Bank could be compensated for its prejudice via costs.
Permission refused for amendments relating to C221 and C13B.
Threshold gateways under CPR 17.4 and 19.6 were not met; the errors in these cases caused reasonable doubt as to Claimant identity. The court would have exercised its discretion to refuse permission even if the gateways had been met.
Similar Cases
Allianz Funds Multi- Strategy Trust (on behalf of AllianzGI Best Styles Global Equity Fund) & Ors v Barclays Bank PLC
[2024] EWHC 235 (Ch)
The Tintometer Limited & Anor v Pitmans (a firm) & Anor
[2024] EWHC 370 (Ch)
Steenbok Newco 10 Sarl & Anor v Formal Holdings Limited & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1160 (Comm)
Adam Robert Giaquinto & Ors v ITI Capital Ltd
[2023] EWHC 2467 (KB)