BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> LBI HF v Stanford [2014] EWHC 2916 (Ch) (05 September 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/2916.html Cite as: [2014] EWHC 2916 (Ch) |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CHANCERY DIVISION
7 Rolls Buildings Fetter Lane London EC4A 1NL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
LBI HF (formerly known as Landsbanki Islands hf) |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
KEVIN GERALD STANFORD |
Defendant |
____________________
1st Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP.
Telephone No: 020 7067 2900. Fax No: 020 7831 6864
e-mail: [email protected]
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
MR. JUSTICE NUGEE:
"As the authorities make clear, it is a question of striking a fair balance. The factors relevant to doing so cannot be exhaustively listed since much will depend on the facts of each case. However, they are likely to include:
(1) the history as regards the amendment and [the explanation as to] why it is being made late;
(2) the prejudice which will be caused to the applicant if the amendment is refused;
(3) the prejudice which will be caused to the resisting party if the amendment is allowed;
(4) whether the text of the amendment is satisfactory in terms of clarity and particularity".
"In the course of his submissions today Mr. John McDonnell QC, who appears with Mr. Daniel Burkitt for Mr. Stanford, told me that Mr. Stanford continues to feel that he cannot properly advance a case of fraud against LBI as yet. Mr. McDonnell also explained however that Mr. Stanford suspects fraud and he hopes that developments in Iceland will enable him to put forward a case to that effect."
"Making allegations of dishonesty without adequate grounds for doing so may be improper conduct. Not making allegation of dishonesty where it is proper to make such allegations may amount to dereliction of duty."
"... this smacks ... of a tactical manoeuvre. The defendant wanted to get the trial put off so that he could see what ammunition he might obtain from the result of other proceedings which would take some years to run their course. Having failed in that, he now wishes to allege fraud in these proceedings. He could have formulated that claim and run an application to amend as an alternative before the judge, albeit that might have undermined his primary case".
I tend to agree.
COSTS