Key Facts
- •Claimants applied to amend their Re-Amended Particulars of Claim (RAPOC) shortly before a 7-week trial.
- •Proposed amendments were substantial (53 pages of new text).
- •Amendments introduced new causes of action, new parties to the alleged fraud, and new factual allegations.
- •Defendants opposed amendments, arguing they fundamentally changed the case and would prejudice trial preparation.
- •The amendments involved replacing the 'Fraudulent Scheme' with a 'Unlawful Scheme', adding new misrepresentations, and implicating individuals previously considered innocent.
- •The amendments also included new claims related to the Talgarth Settlement, affecting the claimants' title to sue.
- •The case involved German, Austrian, and Swiss law, and the applicability of relation back provisions under CPR 17.4 was disputed.
- •Only 15 working days remained before the claimants' skeleton arguments were due.
Legal Principles
Court's discretion to grant permission to amend under CPR 17.3, subject to CPR 17.4.
CPR 17.1(2), 17.3, Quah v Goldman Sachs [2015] EWHC 759 (Comm), Vilca v Xstrata Ltd [2017] EWHC 2096
Overriding objective in exercising discretion, considering proportionality, equal footing, and expeditiousness.
CPR 1.1(2), Scipion Active Trading Fund v Vallis Group Ltd [2020] EWHC 795 (Comm)
Stringent requirements for pleading fraud, requiring distinct allegations and sufficient particularity.
CPR r16.4(1), PD16, Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England [2003] 2 AC 1, NBT v Yurov [2020] EWHC 100 (Comm)
Amendments raising new claims must have a real prospect of success.
Toucan Energy Holdings Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd [2021] EWHC 895 (Comm), Quah v Goldman Sachs
Lateness of amendment is a relevant factor, considering duplication of cost and effort.
CIP Properties v Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd [2015] EWHC 1345, Hague Plant Ltd v Hague [2015] C.P. Rep 14
Amendments under CPR 17.4 after limitation period expiry must arise out of the same or substantially the same facts.
CPR 17.4, Geo-Minerals GT Ltd v Downing [2023] EWCA Civ 648, Diamandis v Wills [2015] EWHC 312
Applicability of relation back to Rome II claims under FLPA 1984.
Brownlie v Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated [2019] EWHC 2533 (QB), Qatar Airways Group QCSC v Middle Eastern News FZ-LLC [2021] EWHC 2180 (QB)
Outcomes
Claimants' application to amend RAPOC was dismissed.
Amendments were very late, would cause significant prejudice to the defendants, and threaten the trial date. The amendments introduced fundamentally new claims and factual allegations that could not be dealt with in the time available before trial.
Permission granted for minor amendments agreed upon by the parties.
These were not part of the main contested application and did not prejudice the defendants.