Geo-Minerals GT Limited & Anor. v Kevin Downing & Ors.

A pleading of causation is adequate where, read as a whole, it identifies the alleged wrongful conduct, the mechanism by which it caused loss, and the opportunities or losses said to have resulted. It need not establish that the claim will succeed.

For amendments sought after limitation has expired, the court must identify the essential facts at an appropriate level of abstraction. Further particulars, further instances of an existing breach, or a corrected description of substantially the same professional duties do not necessarily introduce a new cause of action. In any event, a new cause may be added if it arises from the same or substantially the same facts, judged by the evidence and investigations required of the defendant.

The claimants alleged that Rouse, their trade mark attorneys, transferred valuable trade marks from Geo-Minerals GT Ltd to another company without its authority. They alleged that the resulting public registration enabled other defendants to threaten potential business partners and prevented exploitation of the product.

His Honour Judge Bird, sitting in the High Court, allowed the claimants to re-amend their Particulars of Claim and dismissed Rouse’s application for strike out or summary judgment: [2022] EWHC 2151 (QB). Rouse appealed, contending that causation was inadequately pleaded and that the amendments introduced time-barred causes of action.

1. Appeal dismissed. Males LJ, with whom Phillips LJ and Nicola Davies LJ agreed, held that the re-amended pleading sufficiently pleaded causation.
2. The pleading identified a coherent causal case. The allegedly wrongful transfer of the trade marks, and Rouse’s subsequent conduct, were said to have enabled the alleged conspirators to rely on the public trade mark register when threatening potential commercial partners. Those threats were said to have caused the loss of identified opportunities to exploit the product. Rouse knew, or was in a position to know, the case it had to meet. The superseded Schedule of Loss formed no part of the pleaded case, but its removal did not make the pleading unclear.
3. Amendments after expiry of a limitation period are governed by section 35 of the Limitation Act 1980 and CPR 17.4. The applicable four-stage framework was restated from Ballinger v Mercer Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 996 and Mulalley & Co Ltd v Martlet Homes Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 32. Only whether there was a new cause of action, and whether any new cause arose from the same or substantially the same facts, was disputed.
4. Applying the principles summarised in Diamandis v Wills [2015] EWHC 312 (Ch), the court compared the essential factual situation at a high level of abstraction. The corrected reference to the duties of a trade mark attorney, and the allegations of conflict and conduct favouring the other defendants, did not substantially differ from the existing alleged duty and breach. They added particulars and instances rather than a new cause of action.
5. Alternatively, any new cause arose out of the same or substantially the same facts. It would not require Rouse to undertake materially new investigations. The judge was therefore entitled to permit the amendments and to refuse strike out or summary judgment.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division). Dismissed Rouse’s appeal and upheld permission to re-amend the claim and the refusal of strike out or summary judgment: [2023] EWCA Civ 648.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Manchester District Registry. His Honour Judge Bird allowed the claimants to re-amend their Particulars of Claim and dismissed Rouse’s application for strike out or summary judgment: [2022] EWHC 2151 (QB).