Steenbok Newco 10 Sarl & Anor v Formal Holdings Limited & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1160 (Comm)
Investment Bank PSC v Ahmad Mohammad El-Husseini & Ors
17 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1235 (Comm)
High Court
A bank tried to make major changes to its lawsuit right before trial. The judge said no, because the changes were too late, would cause a delay, and some were probably illegal. The judge explained the rules about changing lawsuits and when they can be changed.
Key Facts
- •Invest Bank P.S.C. (Claimant) sought to re-amend its Particulars of Claim, involving approximately 143 amendments, shortly before a 4-week trial.
- •The amendments included new allegations of dishonesty and bad faith against certain defendants, a new $15 million claim against one defendant (arguably time-barred), and a new factual basis for claims under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
- •The amendments were opposed by several defendants who argued that granting permission would necessitate a trial adjournment due to the need for additional pleadings, disclosure, evidence, and expert reports.
- •The Bank argued that the amendments merely provided a clearer picture of existing claims and that any additional work was minimal.
- •The disputed amendments were categorized into four groups: Medstar Amendments, Tahnoon Amendments, Knowledge Amendments, and Miscellaneous Amendments.
Legal Principles
Court's discretion to grant permission to amend under CPR 17.3, subject to CPR 17.4 and the overriding objective.
CPR 17.3, CPR 17.4, Quah v Goldman Sachs [2015] EWHC 759 (Comm), Vilca v Xstrata Ltd [2017] EWHC 2096
Considerations for amendments made after the limitation period expires under section 35 of the Limitation Act 1980 and CPR 17.4(2).
Section 35, Limitation Act 1980; CPR 17.4(2); Ballinger v Mercer Ltd [2014] 1 WLR 3587; Geo-Minerals GT Ltd v Downing [2023] EWCA Civ 648
Postponement of the limitation period in cases of fraud, concealment, or mistake under section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980.
Section 32, Limitation Act 1980; Paragon v Thakerar [1999] 1 All ER 400 (CA)
Limitation periods applicable to section 423 claims under the Limitation Act 1980.
Section 423, Insolvency Act 1986; Hill v Spread [2007] 1 WLR 2404; Hunt v Fielding [2019] Bus LR 2878
Strict requirements for pleading fraud, dishonesty, and bad faith, including distinct allegations and sufficient particularization.
CPR r16.4(1), PD16, Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England [2003] 2 AC 1, NBT v Yurov [2020] EWHC 100 (Comm)
Outcomes
The application to amend was dismissed.
The amendments were deemed very late, incapable of being addressed before trial, and would have resulted in an unfair burden on the defendants and a trial adjournment. Further, several amendments were time-barred, improperly pleaded, or lacked a real prospect of success.
Similar Cases
MOK Petro Energy FZC v Argo (No 604) Limited & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1555 (Comm)
Allianz Funds Multi-Strategy Trust & Ors v Barclays Bank Plc
[2023] EWHC 2015 (Ch)
Paribas Trust Corporation UK Limited v Uro Property Holdings S.A
[2024] EWHC 2542 (Comm)
Qatar Investment and Project Development Holding Co & Anor v Phoenix Ancient Art S.A. & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1916 (KB)