- Court of appeal refuses permission to amend defence to plead illegality (Otkritie v Urumov)
- Practical implications
- Court details
- Why did the defendants want to amend to plead illegality?
- What are the principles applicable on an application to amend a defence to plead illegality?
- When will the Court of Appeal interfere with such an interlocutory decision?
- Earlier authority—the Standard Chartered Bank case
- Why did the Court of Appeal uphold the refusal of permission to amend to plead illegality?
DR analysis: Dismissing an appeal against a refusal to allow the defendants to amend their defence to include a plea of illegality (ie that the claimants’ claims were debarred by the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio) the Court of Appeal helpfully summarised the court’s approach where the proposed amendment is one of illegality—from the court’s inherent jurisdiction requiring it to allow such amendments where the illegality is manifest, to the other end of the spectrum where the intended amendment has no real prospect of success, and those cases in between.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial