Hague Plant Ltd v Hague & Ors
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE BRIGGS
- LADY JUSTICE SHARP
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Corporate Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Hague Plant Limited (HPL) appealed against a decision denying their request to re-amend their Particulars of Claim against Martin and Jean Angela Hague and MHH Contracting Limited. The claims involved allegations of dishonest breach of fiduciary duty and dishonest assistance, seeking £18 million in damages. The court upheld the original decision, finding the re-amended pleading disproportionate and obscure, and concluded that HPL's request to re-introduce claims lacked justification.
Judge Behrens :
Introduction
This is an application by HPL to Re-Amend the Particulars of Claim.
On 15 August 2013 after a full day’s argument I handed down a judgment (“the strike out judgment”) in relation to an appeal against a refusal by Judge Saffman to strike out two sections of the Amended Defences. It can be found at [2013] EWHC 2443 (Ch) .
On 3 rd October 2013 after 2 days argument I handed down a judgment (“the Defence Amendment judgment”) in relation to an application by the Defendants to Re-Amend the Defence. It can be found at [2013] EWHC 2931 (Ch) .
In those judgments I adopted a number of abbreviations, summarised the parties and the Companies involved in the dispute and summarised – so far as necessary – the nature of the dispute and the allegations in the Amended Particulars of Claim and the Amended Defences.
I shall adopt the same abbreviations as in the previous judgments.
The proposed re-amendments greatly increase the allegations and the scope of the allegations made against the Defendants and thus, if allowed, would force substantial further amendments to the Defences.
It is thus not surprising that (with a number of relatively minor exceptions) the Defendants object to all of the re-amendments.
Before dealing with the application it is right that I should acknowledge the very considerable assistance I have received from the detailed written submissions from the parties. In the light of the fact that I was allocated 2 days reading for this application it was extremely helpful to have such detailed submissions.
Previous Litigation
This is in fact the fifth set of proceedings in the bitter dispute between members of the Hague family. It is not necessary to comment in any detail on Hague (2) – (4) save to note that they are summarised in paragraphs 33 to 36 of the joint submissions of Mr Pipe and Miss Griffin (“the joint written submissions”).
Hague(1) is relevant to many of the issues in these proceedings. There is an extensive summary in paragraphs 5 – 27 of the joint written submissions. The action concerned the equitable ownership of shares held by Martin and Jean Angela in MHH. It was resolved in Martin and Jean Angela's favour.
However the issues in Hague(1) covered a number of areas relevant to the current dispute and the proposed re-amendments. They included the issue of cross-invoicing, the extent of Dianne’s knowledge of the practice, the circumstances in which David and Dianne agreed to transfer their shares i