Kaplan & Ors v Nichols & Ors 18/5/17 (Ch)

An application to amend the Particulars of Claim after the limitation period had expired to introduce a new claim that the Defendants were involved with a collective investment scheme was refused because the new claim did not arise out of the same facts already pleaded. The fact that there was an overlap in some of the documentation that would be examined was insufficient. The counter-applications to strike out the claim in deceit were not struck out despite flawed pleadings because there might be a kernel of a good claim.