Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Guarantors could not introduce a new claim of undue influence on the part of their father
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in the context of proceedings brought by guarantors of loans (and other financial documents) against a lending bank: (a) refuses to allow the guarantors to amend their statement of claim, on the grounds that the proposed amendments amounted to the introduction of an entirely new claim; (b) grants a declaration that the pleadings to date (as previously amended) did not include a claim of undue influence on the part of the guarantors' father, in circumstances where the original pleadings had alleged undue influence on the part of officials of the lending bank; and (c) refuses leave to the guarantors to file supplemental written statements, in circumstances where their original witness statements did not include allegations of undue influence against their father.
Applications by guarantors in claim against lenders - application for 'ruling as to nature of case' - application for leave to amend pleadings to alleged undue influence on the part of a named individual - application to give oral evidence concerning matters not included in witness statements - whether an 'impermissible attempt by the Plaintiffs to change the nature of their case at the thirteenth hour' - claim issued in 2011 - transactions between plaintiffs and bank - share charges between 2003 and 2009 - personal guarantees signed in 2008 - claim by children of successful businessman - ownership of company registered in Madeira - holding by company of 'contracts for difference' (CFDs) - 'margin calls' arising from CFDs - unwinding of ownership of CFDs - lending by bank to facilitate relevant transactions - whether bank acting illegally - ruling by Supreme Court that contracts were enforceable notwithstanding their illegality - amendment of pleadings - centrality of undue influence to claim - allegation that contracts and guarantees had not been procured as a result of the exercise of the plaintiff's own free and informed consent - initial allegation that undue influence had been exerted by officials of the bank - amended claim that the relationship between the plaintiffs and their father was that they signed any document unquestioningly when asked by him - father not being a defendant to the proceedings - legal principles governing an application to amend pleadings - Order 28, rule 1 of the Rules of the Superior Courts - whether necessary for determining the real questions of controversy - whether amendments would be prejudicial to the defendants - discretionary factors - application to expand upon witness statements - Order 63A, rule 22 of the Rules of the Superior Courts - previous orders in case management.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
