The claimants sought to amend their particulars of claim to add a request for declarations with regard to a bill of lading and contract for carriage.
Held: The application to amend was made more than six years after the cause of action accrued. It was in its nature a new claim. The additional possibility that the new facts are substantially the same as those already relied on is limited to: ‘something going no further than minor differences likely to be the subject of enquiry but not involving any major investigation and/or differences merely collateral to the main substance of the new claim, proof of which would not necessarily be essential to its success.’ Though a declaration was discretionary claim, it was not an equitable one, and did not fall within section 36(1).
Judges:
Colman J
Citations:
[2005] EWHC 1276 (Comm), Times 03-Aug-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 3733
Links:
Statutes:
Limitation Act 1980 36(1), Civil Procedure Rules 17.4(2)
Cited by:
Appeal from – P and O Nedlloyd Bv v Arab Metals Co and others CA 28-Mar-2006
. .
Cited – Berezovsky v Abramovich ComC 22-May-2008
Applications were made to amend pleadings and for consequential orders. The claimant sought damages of $4.3 billion alleging breach of trust. The claimant sought to add claims which the defendant said were out of time.
Held: The proposed . .
Cited – Aspect Contracts (Asbetos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc SC 17-Jun-2015
Aspect had claimed the return of funds paid by it to the appellant Higgins under an adjudication award in a construction contract disute. The claimant had been asked to prpare asbestos surveys and reports on maisonettes which Higgins was to acquire . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Limitation
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231184